Live Breaking News & Updates on Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd

4 December 2020
Judicial review – Costs of application – Costs against court
The appellant was a life prisoner. In 2014, the respondent Parole Board (the Board) considered whether it would be appropriate to direct the appellant’s release. If it did not direct his release, it was required to consider whether to recommend his transfer to open conditions. On 10 March 2014, the Board issued its decision. It did not direct his release or recommend his transfer to open conditions. The appellant brought proceedings for judicial review of the decision. In the claim form, both aspects of the decision were challenged. The Board did not take part in the proceedings. In its acknowledgment of service, it ticked the box stating that ‘the defendant … is a court or tribunal and does not intend to make a submission’. At the hearing, the appellant confined his challenge to the decision not to recommend a transfer to open conditions. The challenge was successful, and that aspect ....

City Of , United Kingdom , Daviesv Birmingham Deputy , Lady Arden , Supreme Court , Decision Of Court , Youngv Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd , Parole Board , Birmingham Deputy Coroner , Lord Hodge , Lord Lloyd Jones , Lord Leggatt , Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd , Asylum First Tier Tribunal All , Inner London North Coroner , Asylum First Tier Tribunal , நகரம் ஆஃப் , ஒன்றுபட்டது கிஂக்டம் , பெண் அர்டேன் , உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் , முடிவு ஆஃப் நீதிமன்றம் , பரோல் பலகை , பர்மிங்காம் துணை முடிசூடா , ஆண்டவர் ஹாட்ஜ் , ஆண்டவர் லாயிட் ஜோன்ஸ் , பிரிஸ்டல் வானுர்தி இணை லிமிடெட் ,