 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
In the Working Party's view, this must generally be the position which faces a court
after it quashes a relevant administrative decision. As one judge who responded to
Proposal 73
pointed out, a power like that in CPR 54.19(3) can at best be a reserve
power extremely rarely applicable. However, if it is written into the rules, it is likely
to encourage advocates to place unwarranted reliance on it. Moreover, as the Bar
Association argued, if the correct replacement decision is so starkly clear, there could
be little difficulty getting the relevant public authority swiftly to take that decision
upon the matter being remitted by the court.
In the circumstances, the Working Party is not in favour of adopting Proposal 73.
Recommendation 149: Proposal 73 (for expressly empowering the court, after
quashing a public authority's decision, itself to take that decision in certain
circumstances) should not be adopted.
|
 |
|