Wildy logo
(020) 7242 5778
enquiries@wildy.com

Wildy’s Book News

Book News cover photo

Vol 23 No 6 June/July 2018

Book of the Month

Cover of Drafting Commercial Agreements

Drafting Commercial Agreements

Price: £110.00

Offers for Newly Called Barristers & Students

Special Discounts for Newly Called & Students

Read More ...


Secondhand & Out of Print

Browse Secondhand Online

Read More...


Sealy millman 2018 jp
Desmith out now
Biall2018b
Smpc30unti31jul
Data protection handbook
20pcswmx

Intention, Supremacy and the Theories of Judicial Review


ISBN13: 9781138606616
Published: May 2018
Publisher: Routledge
Country of Publication: UK
Format: Paperback (Hardback in 2016)
Price: £36.99
Hardback edition , ISBN13 9781138856011



This is a Print On Demand Title.
The publisher will print a copy to fulfill your order. Books can take between 1 to 3 weeks. Looseleaf titles between 1 to 2 weeks.

In the late 1980s, a vigorous debate began about how we may best justify, in constitutional terms, the English courts’ power to judicially review the exercise of public power derived from an Act of Parliament.

Two rival theories emerged in this debate: the ultra vires theory and the common law theory. The debate between the supporters of these two theories has never satisfactorily been resolved and has been criticised as being futile.

This book critically analyses the ultra vires and common law theory and argues that neither offers a suitable explanation for the courts’ judicial review jurisdiction.

McGarry argues that this new conception of parliamentary supremacy leads to an alternative theory of judicial review which significantly differs from both the ultra vires and common law theories.

Subjects:
Judicial Review
Contents:
Introduction

Part I: The Current Theories of Judicial Review
1. The Ultra Vies Theory and the Common Law Theory of Judicial Review
2. Themes of the Debate
3. Theory and Practice of Judicial Review

Part II: An Alternative Theory
4. The Principle of Parliamentary Supremacy
5. The Constitutional Legitimacy of Judicial Review

Conclusion