商品簡介
Responding to and building on the work of Professor Michael Taggart, this book brings together essays on two contrasting issues concerning the scope and intensity of substantive grounds of review. First, whether and to what extent should review on substantive grounds - such as unreasonableness, proportionality, and substantive legitimate expectations - be expanded and intensified. And second, whether review on illegality grounds should ever retreat from the usual correctness standard. Fundamental rights as grounds of review raise both of these questions and a separate part is devoted to them. Taggart's support for expansion of substantive grounds of review was of a piece with his recognition of the need for judicial restraint or deference in appropriate contexts. The latter took the form both of his ultimate opposition to proportionality as a ground for review in non-rights cases, and of his support for varying intensity review under the illegality heading. Such awareness of the bigger picture and the need for balance within it is in short supply in the literature. The book is intended to continue Taggart's work in putting the pieces of the jigsaw back together. It will be of interest to scholars of constitutional and administrative law. (Series: Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law) [Subject: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Comparative Law, Human Rights Law]
作者簡介
Hanna Wilberg is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland Faculty of Law. Mark Elliott is a Reader in Public Law at the University of Cambridge.
