R v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston
[1986] 2 Al ER 941 at 945g. The duty is underlined and explained in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department’s Guidance on Discharging the Duty of Candour and Disclosure in Judicial Review Proceedings, dated July 201034.The duty is not only imposed upon a respondent to judicial review proceedings, however. It is equally well established that an applicant owes a duty to make ‘frank disclosure of all relevant facts’:
- J U D G M E N T
- Judge Blundell:
- Relevant Background
- XX (PJAK - sur place activities - Facebook) Iran
- R (HB) v Derby City Council
- R (LS) v London Borough of Brent
- Submissions
- Smithkline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd
- Nimo (appeals: duty of disclosure)
- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Ltd
- R v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston
- Cocks v Thanet District Council
- Quark Fishing
- explain
- R (Citizens UK) v SSHD
- R (JS) v SSHD
- R (A) v London Borough of Croydon
- R (CJ) v Cardiff City Council
- R (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence
- Analysis
- R (DL) v Newham Borough Council
- (R (Houreau & Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
- R (Gardner & Anor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors
- Tweed v Parades Commission
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)
- XX (PJAK – Facebook) Iran
- Kerr v Department for Social Development
- R (HAM) v London Borough of Brent