Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

"Except where the transgression of Constitutional liberty is too plain for argument, personal freedom is best maintained -- so long as the remedial channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed -- when it is

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

(England) was that the power of the legislature "... is limited to the public good of the

Such implied rights are only applicable if they are “plainly arising from the text of the Consititution, rather than assumptions upon which it is based, but which is does not express”. This supports a more recent trend to a purposive approach to interpretation of the constitution.

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the

The misuse of discretion is whether the trial judge's decision was unreasonable or unfair by a legal basis. Because the court let his wife testify in violation of the spousal testimonial privilege, the court abused

outweighs its prejudicial effect. People v. Albarran (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 214, 223. We will not disturb a trial court’s exercise of discretion under Section 352 unless it exceeds the bounds of reason. People v. Funes (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1519.

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

The aim of this essay will be to provide a sufficient illustration of the inadequacies present within Justice Gibson’s dissenting opinion in response to Eakin V. Raub, making his critique of Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion concerning Marbury v. Madison and its establishment of judicial review deficient in its purpose. Through a brief summarization of the cases, paired with a comparative analysis of both abovementioned opinions, this dissertation will intend on challenging the commonly held notion of stark confrontation between the assumptions of both men by demonstrating the relative consistencies present in both assessments regarding their respective cases, while also illustrating the intellectual deficiencies present in Gibson’s dissent. In doing so, the argument presented below will clearly clarify the ineffectiveness of Gibson’s rebutting appraisal of Marshall’s interpretation of the Constitutions consignment of judicial review.

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to

The enactment of both interim and final Constitutions ushered in a new approach to statutory interpretation. In this essay I argue that the statement made by the court in Daniels v Campbell 2003 (9) BCLR 969 ( C ) at 985 is TRUE.