Merits Review Essay

The Court was hearing an appeal by the CCI against the order dated Feb. 15, 2010 of the Tribunal in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Jindal Steel had

In a matter of judicial review brought to court, the decision maker may made mistake in acting beyond jurisdiction, misinterpreting the stature that granting the power and making an error of law. Also as pointed out in the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, the unreasonableness, irrationality or illogicality reasoning in making an administrative decision, the court will excise its power to deliver judgment on the ground that the decision maker was ‘irrational, illogical and not based on findings or inference s of fact supported by logical grounds’.

In October 2012, the Secretary State stated that she planned to deport A from the UK before the fixed date for the hearing of the judicial review application. Lord Boyd refused the application for interim suspension in November 2012 however, authorised him to amend his application for judicial review by substituting initials for his name and address. Lord Boyd also allowed for A’s identifying details such as his name and photograph not to be broadcasted or published under section 11.The application for interim suspension was refused on the basis that A had not brought about a prima facie case to set aside the decision of the Upper Tribunal. A again, appealed against Lord Boyd’s decision to refuse the application which was heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session on 9th November 2012. The Inner House refused A’s appeal against that

The primary proposition in this regard is that the Arbitrator’s award is final in fact and law . Court’s interference is only in exceptional cases . The Courts have always been careful in

Firstly, in regards to administrative merits review, proof of facts is required as opposed to a mere suspicion of these facts. This was reiterated in the case of Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs2 whereby Brennan J articulates that proof is required where reasonably expected, and proof consisting of deficiencies should be inadmissible in merits review decisions.

[18] The case was found in favour of the appellant with the first issue raised being decided in the affirmative, leaving the second issue non-existent as it does not arise. The decision of the third issue was negative. The fourth issue was remitted back to the Supreme Court for decision under the Full Court.

Private parties who feel affected by decisions of government that have been reached at EU or national level are entitled to make a case against the state in a Claim for Judicial Review (CJR) proceeding. However before this process can take place the court must be content that the claimant has satisfied a certain criteria, in a process known as standing. If the court grants standing to the private party, then the government decision being challenged may be subject to judicial review.

However, if Jorani’s application was refused because of not satisfying the schedule 2 requirements in relation to PIC 4001, your options would be to firstly apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the Migration and Refugee Division for merits-review, where they step into the shoes of the original decision-maker (so to speak) and look at the facts of the application and the relevant law.

The Judicature, is authorised to interpret the law, therefore it contributed indirectly to the ultimate decision in the case by using the statutory laws and precedent cases such as Hatsatouris v Hatsatouris [2001]

This is an application for judicial review. Judicial review is a means of reviewing and challenging the decision making process of public bodies on decisions that affect both the individuals and the public. Judicial review is discretionary. It allows those affected to challenge the process so therefore it is not an appeal.

Judicial Review is only available where public powers or duties are being exercised. It is not available for Private Law decisions. The basis for Judicial Review comes from the Separation of Powers doctrine, specifically at a Federal level Chapters I, II and III of the Constitution. The Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) was enacted to simply the procedure for seeking Judicial Review of Commonwealth matters, however not all administrative actions are covered and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is still relevant. The State of Victoria has similar legislation, the Administrative Law Act 1978. Judicial Review will only look at the legality of the decision, not any fact finding or factual conclusions.

Such a Dectaration has no direct impact upon the continuing force of the legislation but it is likely to produce public pressure upon the government to remove the incompatibility. It also strengthens the case of a claimant armed with such a decision from the demostic courts in any subsequent appeal to Strasbourg. In order to provide swift compliance with the convention the Act allows Ministers to take remedial action to amend even offending primary legislation via subordinate legislation.

For quick review, opposition proceedings at the JPO are based only on written documents and there are no oral hearings. The JPO Board will review the opposition petition and decide whether there are reasons

doesn’t agree on the Parliament’s opinion, it gives the Parliament three month to make a decision,

At the pre-arbitration stage – the Courts would often take years in appointing arbitrators under Section 11 of the 1996 Act; the domestic arbitration process thereafter itself was a prolonged affair often conducted exactly like a litigation and taking many years to conclude; post conclusion of the arbitration, the losing party would often challenge the award and such a challenge would languish in courts for years to come. This last situation was further convoluted by Section 36 (as it stood prior to 2015 Amendment) which provided for automatic stay of the enforcement of the award upon mere admission of a challenge to the award. The Supreme Court categorically criticized such a stalemate vis-à-vis enforcement. It observed that “this automatic suspension of the execution of the award, the moment an application challenging the said award is filed under section 34 of the Act leaving no discretion in the court to put the parties on terms, in our opinion, defeats the very objective of the alternate dispute resolution system to which arbitration belongs. We do find that there is a recommendation made by the concerned Ministry to the Parliament to amend section 34 with a proposal to empower the civil court to pass suitable interim orders in such cases. In view of the urgency of such amendment, we sincerely hope that necessary steps would be taken by the authorities concerned at the earliest to bring about the required change in