10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

emedies of mandamus and prohibition the availability of injunctions againstministers would only be of any significnacy in situations where it would beappropriate to grant interim relief. Even hury the significance of the champereduced by the power of the come to grant I may under end.Furthermore, in practice an injunction against a minster wouldve on more than a peremptory declaration because of the limitations onexecution contained in Ord 77, r 1 (2) applies to judicial review and proceedingsagainst an officer of the Crown as such.Lord Bridge in Factortance Ltd r Secretay of State for Transport (1989) 2 All ER692 at 703, (1990) 2 AC 85 at 143 acknowledged the question at issue depends,first, on the true construction of s 31 – Lord Bridge also accepted that if s 31 wereto be construed in isolation there would be great force in the reasoning that s 31did enable injunctions to be granted for the first time against ministers of theCrown in judicial review proceedings (see (1989) 2 All ER 692 at 708, (1990) 2AC 85 at 149). Why then did Lord Bridge come to the conclusion that aninjunction could not be granted against a minister in proceedings for judicialreview?A primary couse for Lord Bridges taking this view was that he concluded that itwould be dramatic departure from what was the position prior to the introductionof judicial review for an injunction to be available against the Crown to be madeonly py express legislation. His conclusion was not however, based on ascomprehensive on argument of the history of both civil and prerogative588

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!