![[2024] UKUT 330 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The Court of Appeal in Dalston Projects thus reaffirmed that the first-instance court determines proportionality for itself, giving appropriate respect and weight to the initial decision-maker. The fi
The Court of Appeal in Dalston Projects thus reaffirmed that the first-instance court determines proportionality for itself, giving appropriate respect and weight to the initial decision-maker. The first-instance court should not confine itself to considering whether the initial decision-maker gave proper consideration to the question of proportionality, but must determine whether the decision was proportionate or not. The central principles in ISA v SB remain untouched by the Dalston Projects decision, in our view, and the authorities come full circle; Dalston Projects reaffirms the approach taken in Belfast CC v Miss Behavin’ (‘Miss Behavin’’), which was quoted from with approval in ISA v SB.
The Court of Appeal in ISA v SB also confirmed that consideration of public confidence in the statutory scheme and the barring list is implicit in the consideration of fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community (Maurice Kay LJ at [25]).
- Heading
- The appeal is dismissed
- The DBS decision
- Further material
- Permission to appeal decision
- C: LAW
- Upper Tribunal Powers on Appeal
- Proportionality: Case Law
- The Court of Appeal in Dalston Projects thus reaffirmed that the first-instance court determines proportionality for itself, giving appropriate respect and weight to the initial decision-maker. The fi
- Proportionality: DBS submissions and our approach
- D. THE HEARING
- Conclusions