More blogs

Public Law notes

  • Home
  • About the HSF public law team
  • Team

Filters

Filters

Categories
Type
Year

Categories

Filter by category:

  • Costs
  • COVID-19
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Fairness
  • FOI/EIR
  • Human rights
  • Inquiries
  • Judicial Review
  • Legitimate expectation
  • Policy matters
  • Pro Bono
  • Public Procurement
  • Public/private
  • Publications
  • Reasons
  • Regulatory
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Uncategorized

Type

Filter by post type:

  • Videos
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars

Year

Filter by date:

    Error: Can't connect
    Warning: mysqli_query() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli, null given in /home/customer/www/hsfnotes.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hsfnotes/template-parts/tpl_filters.php on line 186

    Warning: mysqli_fetch_assoc() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, null given in /home/customer/www/hsfnotes.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hsfnotes/template-parts/tpl_filters.php on line 187

Categories

  • Costs
  • COVID-19
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Fairness
  • FOI/EIR
  • Human rights
  • Inquiries
  • Judicial Review
  • Legitimate expectation
  • Policy matters
  • Pro Bono
  • Public Procurement
  • Public/private
  • Publications
  • Reasons
  • Regulatory
  • Statutory interpretation
  • ALL CATEGORIES

Year

  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017

Type

  • Videos
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Category: Regulatory
  • Year: 2017

When can you be part and parcel of a regulatory scheme but not amenable to judicial review

18 October, 2017
In R (on the application of Underwritten Warranty Co Ltd (t/a Insurance Backed Guarantee Co)) v FENSA Ltd[2017] EWHC 2308 (Admin) the High Court had to decide whether the decisions of FENSA Ltd, an operator of a self-certification scheme forming an integral part of regulation in the construction industry, were susceptible to judicial review. While decisions … Read more

Regulators’ complaints procedures should allow challenges to substantive conclusions

30 August, 2017
In R (on the application of Durand Academy Trust) v OFSTED [2017] EWHC 2097 (Admin), the High Court quashed a report of the education regulator (the “Report”) on the basis that its complaints procedures were not fair as they did not permit the claimant school (“the School”) to substantively challenge the conclusions of the Report. Key … Read more

The ‘Silentnight’ saga – court dismisses HIG’s application for judicial review of the Pensions Regulator

16 January, 2017
The High Court has dismissed an application by HIG, the American private equity fund that purchased the Silentnight business in a pre-pack administration during 2011 (and which is now facing anti-avoidance action from the Pensions Regulator), for a judicial review of the manner in which TPR has gone about exercising its regulatory powers: [2017] EWHC … Read more
Something has gone wrong. Please try again.
Subscribe

Key contacts

Andrew Lidbetter
Andrew Lidbetter
Partner
+44 20 7466 2066
Nusrat Zar
Nusrat Zar
Partner
+44 20 7466 2465
Jasveer Randhawa
Jasveer Randhawa
Professional Support Consultant
+44 20 7466 2998
  • Related links

    • Brexit Notes
    • Climate Change Notes
    • Litigation Notes
    • Litigation Notes > Privilege
    • Real Estate Development Notes
    • Home
    • About the HSF public law team
    • Team
    • Subscribe
    • More Blogs
    • HSF Website
    Stay connected

    Herbert Smith Freehills LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.


    © Herbert Smith Freehills 2023
    • Modern slavery and Human Trafficking Statement
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility
    • Legal and Regulatory
    • Privacy Policy
    • Report Fraud