Hewitson v Hewitson
[1995] 1 ALL ER 472 (see particularly per Butler-Sloss LJ at [63] – [65]. Finally, in this context, we remind ourselves of the presumption of statutory construction that the law should serve the public interest: Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (Sixth Edition), page 722.20. We further take into account that, while this has manifested itself in contexts other than the present, one of the emerging features of the modern legal system is that of strong resistance to what has become known as “satellite” litigation. This species of litigation takes the form of proceedings in a higher court or tribunal, frequently via judicial review challenges, brought in circumstances where the process of the lower court or tribunal is incomplete. This is illustrated particularly, and perhaps most famously, in
- Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
- Introduction
- The Issue
- The Proceedings to Date
- Statutory Framework
- “Right of appeal to the Tribunal
- “Pending appeal
- Section 11
- “Right to appeal to Upper Tribunal
- “Proceedings on appeal to Upper Tribunal
- “Right to appeal to Court of Appeal etc.
- “Overriding objective and parties’ obligation to co-operate with the Upper Tribunal
- “Case management powers
- The Parties’ Contentions In Outline
- Discussion
- A right of appeal is conferred by statute or equivalent legislative authority; it is not a mere matter of practice or procedure and neither the superior nor the inferior Court or Tribunal nor both combined can create or take away such a right.
- Evans v Bartlam
- Re D (A Child)
- R v Z
- R (Quintavalle) v the Secretary of State for Health
- Brown v Dean
- R v Pinfold
- Hewitson v Hewitson
- R v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex Parte Kebeline
- McLuckie v Coroner for Northern Ireland
- further
- partial
- Conclusion