[1]
Ahmed, F. and Perry, A. 2016. Constitutional Statutes. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqw030.
[2]
Ahmed, F. and Perry, A. 2014. The Coherence of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations. The Cambridge Law Journal. 73, 1 (2014), 61–85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197314000026.
[3]
Alder, J. and Syrett, K. 2017. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Palgrave Macmillan.
[4]
Alder, J. and Syrett, K. 2017. The Rule of Law. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Palgrave Macmillan. 121–137.
[5]
Alder, J. and Syrett, K. 2017. Underlying Politcal Traditions. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Palgrave Macmillan. 26–54.
[6]
Ali v United Kingdom: Article 6(1) ECHR and Administrative Decision-Making | Public Law for Everyone: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/03/13/ali-v-united-kingdom-article-61-echr-and-administrative-decision-making/.
[7]
Allan, T.R.S. 2003. Constitutional Dialogue and the Justification of Judicial Review. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 23, 4 (2003).
[8]
Allan, T.R.S. 2005. Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law. Oxford University Press.
[9]
Allan, T.R.S. 2005. Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law. Oxford University Press.
[10]
Allan, T.R.S. 2006. Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of "Due Deference”. The Cambridge Law Journal. 65, 3 (2006), 671–695. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197306007264.
[11]
Allan, T.R.S. 2011. Judicial Deference and Judicial Review: Legal Doctrine and Legal Theory. Law Quarterly Review. 127, 1 (2011).
[12]
Allan, T.R.S. 2002. The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review: Conceptual Conundrum or Interpretative Inquiry? The Cambridge Law Journal. 61, 1 (2002), 87–125. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S000819730200154X.
[13]
Arvind, T.T. 2017. The Curious Origins of Judicial Review. Law Quarterly Review. (2017), 91–117.
[14]
Atrill, S. 2003. WHO IS THE "FAIR-MINDED AND INFORMED OBSERVER”? BIAS AFTER. The Cambridge Law Journal. 62, 2 (2003), 279–289. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197303006317.
[15]
Bamforth, N. 1997. Fairness and Legitimate Expectation in Judicial Review. The Cambridge Law Journal. 56, 1 (1997), 1–4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300017530.
[16]
Barber, N.W. 2009. Laws and Constitutional Conventions. Law Quarterly Review. 125, (2009), 294–309.
[17]
Barber, N.W. 2009. Laws and Constitutional Conventions. Law Quarterly Review. (2009), 294–309.
[18]
Barber, N.W. 2001. Prelude to the Separation of Powers. The Cambridge Law Journal. 60, 1 (2001), 59–88. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197301000629.
[19]
Barber, N.W. 2001. Review: The Academic Mythologians. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 21, 2 (2001).
[20]
Bingham, T.H. 2011. The Rule of Law. Penguin.
[21]
Blake, N. 2002. Importing Proportionality: Clarification or Confusion. European Human Rights Law Review. (2002), 19–27.
[22]
Blog | UK Constitutional Law Association | affiliated to the International Association of Constitutional Law: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog/.
[23]
British and Irish Legal Information Institute: http://www.bailii.org/.
[24]
Campbell, N.R. 1994. The Duty to Give Reasons in Administrative Law. Public Law. (1994), 184–191.
[25]
Chan, C. 2016. A Preliminary Framework for Measuring Deference in Rights Reasoning. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 14, 4 (2016), 851–882. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mow058.
[26]
Clayton, R. 2015. The Empire Strikes Back: Common Law Rights and the Human Rights Act. Public Law. (2015), 3–12.
[27]
Constitution Committee | UK Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/.
[28]
Craig, P. 1999. Competing Models of Judicial Review. Public Law. (1999), 428–447.
[29]
Craig, P. 1997. Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework. Public Law. (1997), 467–487.
[30]
Craig, P. 2011. Political Constitutionalism and the Judicial Role: A Response. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 9, 1 (2011), 112–131. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor025.
[31]
Craig, P. 2001. The Courts, the Human Rights Act and Judicial Review. Law Quarterly Review. (2001), 589–603.
[32]
Craig, P. 2003. The Human Rights Act, Article 6 and Procedural Rights. Public Law. (2003), 753–773.
[33]
Craig, P. 2013. The Nature of Reasonableness Review. Current Legal Problems. 66, 1 (2013), 131–167. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cut010.
[34]
Craig, P. 1998. Ultra Vires and the Foundations of Judicial Review. The Cambridge Law Journal. 57, 1 (1998), 63–90. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300134397.
[35]
Craig, P. and Schonberg, S. 2000. Substantive Legitimate Expectations After Coughlan. Public Law. (2000), 684–701.
[36]
Craig, R. 2017. A Simple Application of the Frustration Principle: Prerogative, Statute and Miller. Public Law. (2017).
[37]
Daly, P. 2010. Justiciability and the ‘Political Question’ Doctrine. Public Law. (2010), 160–178.
[38]
Delegated Legislation | UK Parliament: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/delegated/.
[39]
Elliot, M. and Thomas, R. 2017. Themes, Sources, and Principles. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[40]
Elliott, M. 2015. A Tangled Constitutional Web: The Black-Spider Memos and the British Constitution’s Relational Architecture. Public Law. (2015), 539–550.
[41]
Elliott, M. 2006. Legitimate Expectations: Procedure, Substance, Policy and Proportionality. The Cambridge Law Journal. 65, 2 (2006), 254–256. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197306227119.
[42]
Elliott, M. 2012. The Appearance of Bias, the Fair-Minded and Informed Observer, and the "Ordinary Person in Queen Square Market”. The Cambridge Law Journal. 71, 2 (2012), 247–250. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197312000372.
[43]
Elliott, M. 1999. The Demise of Parliamentary Sovereignty? the Implications for Justifying Judicial Review. Law Quarterly Review. (1999), 119–137.
[44]
Elliott, M. 2015. The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty in Legal, Constitutional, and Political Perspective. The Changing Constitution. J.L. Jowell et al., eds. Oxford University Press. 38–66.
[45]
Elliott, M. and Thomas, R. 2017. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[46]
Elliott, M. and Thomas, R. 2017. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[47]
Elliott, M. and Thomas, R. 2017. Themes, Sources, and Principles. Public Law. Oxford University Press. 36–86.
[48]
European Court of Human Rights: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home.
[49]
Feldman, D. 2005. None, One or Several? Perspectives on the UK’s Constitution(s). The Cambridge Law Journal. 64, 2 (2005), 329–351. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197305006884.
[50]
Fenwick, H. 2002. The Anti–Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response to 11 September? The Modern Law Review. 65, 5 (2002), 724–762. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00405.
[51]
Ferreira, N. 2015. The Supreme Court in a Final Push to Go Beyond Strasbourg. Public Law. (2015).
[52]
Forsyth, C. 1996. Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review. The Cambridge Law Journal. 55, 1 (1996), 122–140. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300097762.
[53]
Forsyth, C. and Elliott, M. 2003. The Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Public Law. (2003), 286–307.
[54]
Gavin Phillipson: Historic Commons Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance (Part I) | UK Constitutional Law Association: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/19/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-i/.
[55]
Gavin Phillipson: Historic Commons Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance. Part II the Way Forward | UK Constitutional Law Association: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/11/29/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-ii-the-way-forward/.
[56]
Gee, G. and Webber, G.C.N. 2010. What Is a Political Constitution? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 30, 2 (2010), 273–299. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqq013.
[57]
Goldsworthy, J. 2003. Homogenizing Constitutions. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 23, 3 (2003), 483–505. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/23.3.483.
[58]
Gordon, M. 2015. Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution: Process, Politics and Democracy. Hart Publishing.
[59]
Gregson, R. 2017. When Should There Be an Implied Power to Delegate? Public Law. (2017), 408–425.
[60]
Hale, B. 2012. Argentoratum Locutum: Is Strasbourg or the Supreme Court Supreme? Human Rights Law Review. 12, 1 (2012), 65–78. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngs001.
[61]
Hale, Lady 2015. ‘The UK Supreme Court in the UK Constitution’ (Inaugural Lecture at the Institute for Legal and Constitutional Research, University of St Andrews, 8th of October 2015.
[62]
Hickman, T. 2008. The Substance and Structure of Proportionality. Public Law. (2008), 694–716.
[63]
Hilson, C. 2002. Judicial Review, Policies and the Fettering of Discretion. Public Law. (2002), 111–129.
[64]
‘Historic’ Commons’ Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance. Part I | UK Constitutional Law Association: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/19/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-i/.
[65]
"Historic” Commons’ Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance. Part II | the Way Forward – UK Constitutional Law Association: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/11/29/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-ii-the-way-forward/.
[66]
Jaconelli, J. 2005. Do Constitutional Conventions Bind? The Cambridge Law Journal. 64, 1 (2005), 149–176. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197305006823.
[67]
Jaconelli, J. 2005. Do Constitutional Conventions Bind? The Cambridge Law Journal. 64, 1 (2005), 149–176. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197305006823.
[68]
Jones, B.C. 2016. Preliminary Warnings on ‘Constitutional’ Idolatry. Public Law. (2016), 74–92.
[69]
Jowell, J. 1999. Of Vires and Vacuums: The Constitutional Context of Judicial Review. Public Law. (1999), 448–460.
[70]
Jowell, J. 2006. Parliamentary Sovereignty Under the New Constitutional Hypothesis. Public Law. (2006), 562–579.
[71]
Jowell, J. and Lester, A. 1988. Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law. Commonwealth Law Bulletin. 14, 2 (1988), 858–870. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03050718.1988.9985971.
[72]
Judicial Power and the United Kingdom’s Changing Constitution | Public Law for Everyone: 2018. https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/10/31/judicial-power-and-the-united-kingdoms-changing-constitution/.
[73]
Kavanaugh, A. 2010. Defending Deference in Public Law and Constitutional Theory. Law Quarterly Review. 222, (2010).
[74]
Knight, C.J.S. 2009. A Framework for Fettering. Judicial Review. 14, 1 (2009), 73–80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2009.11426590.
[75]
Le Sueur, A.P. 1999. Legal Duties to Give Reasons. Current Legal Problems. 52, 1 (1999), 150–172. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/52.1.150.
[76]
Le Sueur, A.P. et al. 2016. Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[77]
Le Sueur, A.P. et al. 2019. Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[78]
Lever, A. 2007. Is Judicial Review Undemocratic? Public Law. (2007), 280–298.
[79]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill 2001. Developing Constitutional Principles of Public Law. Public Law. (2001), 684–694.
[80]
Loveland, I. 2021. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
[81]
Loveland, I. 2021. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
[82]
Loveland, I. 2003. Does Homelessness Decision Making Engage Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights? European Human Rights Law Review. (2003), 176–204.
[83]
Loveland, I. 2015. Human Rights II: Emergent Principles. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press. 588–615.
[84]
Loveland, I. 2018. Human Rights II: Emergent Principles. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
[85]
Malleson, K. 2000. Judicial Bias and Disqualification After Pinochet (No. 2). Modern Law Review. 63, 1 (2000), 119–127. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00254.
[86]
Mark Elliot: Reflections on the HS2 Case: A Hierarchy of Domestic Constitutional Norms and the Qualified Primacy of EU Law | UK Constitutional Law Association: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/01/23/mark-elliot-reflections-on-the-hs2-case-a-hierarchy-of-domestic-constitutional-norms-and-the-qualified-primacy-of-eu-law/.
[87]
Mark Elliott: Justification, Calibration and Substantive Judicial Review: Putting Doctrine in its Place | UK Constitutional Law Association: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/17/mark-elliott-justification-calibration-and-substantive-judicial-review-putting-doctrine-in-its-place/.
[88]
Masterman, R. and Murray, C. 2013. Law, Politics, and the United Kingdom Constitution. Exploring Constitutional and Administrative Law. Pearson. 88–108.
[89]
Masterman, R. and Murray, C. 2003. Law, Politics, and the United Kingdom Constitution. Exploring Constitutional and Administrative Law. 88–108.
[90]
Murkens, J.E.K. 2018. Democracy as the Legitimating Condition in the UK Constitution. Legal Studies. 38, 01 (2018), 42–58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2017.10.
[91]
Nicol, D. 2006. Law and Politics After the Human Rights Act. Public Law. (2006), 722–751.
[92]
Norris, M. 1996. Ex Parte Smith: Irrationality and Human Rights. Public Law. (1996), 590–600.
[93]
Oliver, D. 1987. Is the Ultra Vires Rule the Basis of Judicial Review? Public Law. (1987), 543–569.
[94]
Olowofoyeku, A.A. 2009. Bias and the Informed Observer: A Call for a Return to Gough. The Cambridge Law Journal. 68, 2 (2009), 388–409. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197309000373.
[95]
Olowofoyeku, A.A. 2000. The Nemo Judex Rule: The Case Against Automatic Disqualification. Public Law. (2000), 456–475.
[96]
Perry, A. and Tucker, A. 2018. Top-Down Constitutional Conventions. The Modern Law Review. 81, 5 (2018), 765–789. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12364.
[97]
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee | UK Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/.
[98]
Poole, T. 2005. Of Headscarves and Heresies: The Denbigh High School Case and Public Authority Decision-Making Under the Human Rights Act. Public Law. (2005), 685–695.
[99]
Poole, T. 2009. The Reformation of English Administrative Law. The Cambridge Law Journal. 68, 1 (2009), 142–168. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197309000063.
[100]
Principles of Good Administration | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO): https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/our-principles/principles-good-administration.
[101]
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee | UK Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/.
[102]
Rainey, B. et al. 2014. Context, Background, and Institutions. Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press. 3–20.
[103]
Ringhand, L. 2005. Fig Leaves, Fairy Tales, and Constitutional Foundations: Debating Judicial Review in Britain. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. 43, 3 (2005).
[104]
Rivers, J. 2006. Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review. Cambridge Law Journal. 65, (2006), 174–207.
[105]
Sales, P. 2013. Rationality, Proportionality and the Development of the Law. Law Quarterly Review. (2013), 223–241.
[106]
Stanton, J. et al. 2018. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[107]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Access to Review and Remedies. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[108]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Access to Review and Remedies. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[109]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Illegality. Public law. Oxford University Press.
[110]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Illegality. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[111]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Irrationality and Proportionality. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[112]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Irrationality and Proportionality. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[113]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[114]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[115]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[116]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[117]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[118]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. The Royal Prerogative and Constitutional Conventions. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[119]
Stanton, J. and Prescott, C. 2018. The Royal Prerogative and Constitutional Conventions. Public Law. Oxford University Press.
[120]
Stark, S.W. 2017. Facing Facts: Judicial Approaches to Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Law Quarterly Review. (2017).
[121]
Supperstone, M. and Coppel, J. 1999. Judicial Review After the Human Rights Act. European Human Rights Law Review. (1999), 301–329.
[122]
Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament: 2003. https://parlipapers.proquest.com/parlipapers/result/pqpdocumentview?accountid=11455&groupid=103502&pgId=c5aea05f-b8ed-42b0-b2e6-8c68938d85ec.
[123]
Taylor, R.B. 2015. Foundational and Regulatory Conventions: Exploring the Constitutional Significance of Britain’s Dependency Upon Conventions. Public Law. (2015), 614–632.
[124]
Taylor, R.B. 2015. Foundational and Regulatory Conventions: Exploring the Constitutional Significance of Britain’s Dependency Upon Conventions. Public Law. (2015), 614–632.
[125]
The Constitution Unit Blog: https://constitution-unit.com/.
[126]
Tomkins, A. 2002. In Defence of the Political Constitution. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 22, 1 (2002), 157–175. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/22.1.157.
[127]
Tomlinson, J. 2017. The Narrow Approach to Substantive Legitimate Expectations and the Trend of Modern Authority. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal. 17, 1 (2017), 75–84. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2017.1311514.
[128]
Turner, I. 2009. Irrationality, the Human Rights Act and the Limits of Merits-Review. Nottingham Law Journal. 18, (2009), 18–36.
[129]
UK Constitutional Law Association Blog | International Association of Constitutional Law: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog/.
[130]
UK Human Rights Blog: https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/.
[131]
UK Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/.
[132]
Unmarried Mother Siobhan McLaughlin Wins Supreme Court Benefit Case | BBC: 2018. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45355028.
[133]
Varuhas, J.N.E. 2013. The Reformation of English Administrative Law? "Rights”, Rhetoric and Reality. The Cambridge Law Journal. 72, 2 (2013), 369–413. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197313000500.
[134]
Varuhas, J.N.E. 2013. The Reformation of English Administrative Law? "Rights”, Rhetoric and Reality. The Cambridge Law Journal. 72, 2 (2013), 369–413. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197313000500.
[135]
Waldron, J. 2006. The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal. 115, 6 (2006). DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/20455656.
[136]
Walker, P. 1995. What’s Wrong With Irrationality? Public Law. (1995), 556–576.
[137]
Watson, J. 2010. Clarity and Ambiguity: A New Approach to the Test of Legitimacy in the Law of Legitimate Expectations. Legal Studies. 30, 4 (2010), 633–652. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2010.00177.x.
[138]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2021. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[139]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2021. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[140]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions and Roles’ and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 13–15.
[141]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions and Roles’ and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[142]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2015. Human Rights. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 255–290.
[143]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Human Rights. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[144]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2015. Human Rights. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 255–290.
[145]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Human Rights. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[146]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Illegality. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[147]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Illegality. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[148]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Irrationality and Proportionality. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[149]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Irrationality and Proportionality. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[150]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2015. Parliamentary Supremacy: The Theory. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 185–226.
[151]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Parliamentary Supremacy: The Theory. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[152]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Procedural Impropriety. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[153]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Procedural Impropriety. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[154]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Procedural Impropriety. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[155]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. Procedural Impropriety. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[156]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2015. The Crown Royal Perogative. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 145–182.
[157]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. The Crown Royal Perogative. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[158]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2015. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 365–393.
[159]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[160]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[161]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[162]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[163]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[164]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2015. The Rule of Law. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 77–113.
[165]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. The Rule of Law. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[166]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. ‘What is Public Law’ and ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions, and Roles’, and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. 3–76.
[167]
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. 2018. What is Public Law’ and ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions, and Roles’, and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
[168]
Where Next for the Wednesbury Principle? a Brief Response to Lord Carnwath | Public Law for Everyone: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2013/11/19/where-next-for-the-wednesbury-principle-a-brief-response-to-lord-carnwath/.
[169]
Williams, D. 2000. Bias; the Judges and the Separation of Powers. Public Law. (2000), 45–60.
[170]
Williams, R. 2017. Structuring Substantive Review. Public Law. (2017), 99–123.
[171]
Wong, G. 2000. Towards the Nutcracker Principle: Reconsidering the Objections to Proportionality. Public Law. (2000), 92–109.
[172]
Young, A.L. 2011. Is Dialogue Working Under the Human Rights Act 1998? Public Law. (2011), 773–800.
[173]
Young, A.L. 2014. Will You, Won’t You, Will You Join the Deference Dance? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 34, 2 (2014), 375–394. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqu004.
[174]
An Application by Siobhan Mclaughlin for Judicial Review [2016] NICA 53.
[175]
Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752.
[176]
British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765.
[177]
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.
[178]
Exercise of Discretion in Administrative Decision-Making.
[179]
Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30.
[180]
Human Rights Act 1998.
[181]
In the Matter of an Application by Siobhan McLaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 48.
[182]
International Journal of Constitutional Law.
[183]
Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56.
[184]
Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56.
[185]
Legal Studies: The Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars.
[186]
Liversidge v Anderson [1941] UKHL 1.
[187]
McLoughlin Supreme Court Press Summary.
[188]
Miller & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 3) [2017] UKSC 5.
[189]
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.
[191]
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63.
[192]
R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21.
[193]
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, [40]-[49].
[194]
R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) (Appellants) v Ministry of Justice (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 38.
[195]
The Cambridge Law Journal.
[196]
The Law Quarterly Review.
[197]
The Modern Law Review.
[198]
Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8.
[199]
Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8.
[200]
Unmarried Mother Wins Supreme Court Fight for Widowed Parents’ Allowance | Good Morning Britain | YouTube.
