|
R. v.Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal, ex parte MacFarlane 1 WLR1486.
Barnardv. National Dock Labour Board 2 QB 18; Vine v. NationalDock Labour Board AC 488; Jeffs v. New Zealand Dairy Board 1 AC 551, at 568, 569; R. v. Race Relations Board, ex parteSelvarajan 1 WLR 1686.
ChiefConstable of the North Wales Police v. Evans 1 WLR 1155, at 1161,1165, per Lord Hailsham and Lord Bridge.
LocalGovernment Board v. Arlidge AC 120.
Lloydv. McMahon AC 625.
BrightonCorporation v. Parry 70 LGR 576.
分别参见R. v. Secretary ofState for the Home Department, ex parte Doody 1 AC 531; R. v.Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Duggan 3 AllER 277.
R. v.Army Board of the Defence Council, ex parte Anderson 1 QB 169.
R. v.Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Malhi 1 QB194.
R.(on the application of Smith) v. Parole Board 1 WLR 421 (CA); UKHL 1 (HL).
R. v.Army Board of the Defence Council, ex parte Anderson QB 169.
R. v.Kingston-upon-Hull Rent Tribunal, ex parte Black 65 TLR 209.
R. v. Housing Appeal Tribunal 3 KB 334; ReWilson AC 750.
相关讨论参见J. Alder, “Representationbefore Tribunals”, (1972) Public Law 278; D. Galligan, Due Process and FairProcudure (Oxford University Press, 1996), pp.361-369.
R. v.Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Tarrant QB251, at 285-286, per Webster.
分别参见R. v. Board ofVisitors of HM Remand Centre Risley, ex parte Draper, The Times, May 24,1988; R. v. Board of Visitors of Parkhurst Prison, ex parteNorney, The Times, July 29, 1989.
R. v.Leicester City Justices, ex parte Barrow 2 QB 260.
R. v.Canterbury of Archbishop, ex parte Morant KB 282, at 292.
R. v.Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No. 2) QB 198.目前，新的狱规规定，监狱管理人员不能拆看犯人与其律师的通信，不管该犯人是否处在诉讼过程；除非监狱长有理由相信该通信夹带违禁物品或者可能危害监狱和他人安全。
相关的案例，参见Campbell and Fell v.UK, ECHR Series A, no. 80.
EnderbyTown Football Club Ltd. v. Football Association Ltd. Ch. 591.
R. v.Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, ex parte St. Germain (No.2) 1WLR 1401.
R. v. Bradford JJ,. ex parte Wilkinson 1 WLR 692.
R. v.Hereford Magistrates Court, ex parte Rowlands QB 110.
Universityof Ceylon v. Fernando 1 WLR 223.
R. v.Commission for Racial Equality, ex parte Cottrell & Rothon 1WLR 1580.
R. v.Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Guiness plc 1 QB 146.
Bradmanv. Radio Taxicabs Ltd. 134 New LJ 1018.
Herringv. Templeman 3 All ER 569.
R. v.Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, ex parte Moore 1 QB 456,at 490, per Diplock LJ.
Erringtonv. Wilson, The Times, 2 June 1995.
Nicholsonv. Secretary of Sate for Energy (1978) 76 LGR 693.
R. v.Blundeston Prison Visitors, ex parte Fox-Taylor 1 All ER 646.
Bushellv. Secretary of State for the Environment AC 75. LordEdmund-Davies法官表示异议。他坚称，“传唤对方证人以供质证是自然正义的要求”。Ibid，at116.
R. v.London Regional Passengers Committee, ex parte Brent LBC, The Times, May23, 1985.
RePergamon Press Ltd. Ch. 388, at 400.
Hansonv. church Commissioners QB 823.
Ladd v.Marshall 1 WLR 1489. 另见Al-Mehdawi v. Home Secretary 1AC 876; HertfordshireInvestments Ltd v. Bubb 1 WLR 2318, 2325.
Bushellv. Secretary of State for the Environment AC 75, at 102, per LordDiplock. 法院同时指出，如果新的证据在案件的关键问题上有重要意义，部长应当重新组织调查，或者给相关当事人发表书面意见的机会。
|
