(1) If any person—
(a) is aggrieved by any order to which this section applies and wishes to question the validity of that order on the grounds—
(i) that the order is not within the powers of this Act, or
(ii) that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to that order; or
(b) is aggrieved by any action on the part of the Secretary of State [or the Welsh Ministers] to which this section applies and wishes to question the validity of that action on the grounds—
(i) that the action is not within the powers of this Act, or
(ii) that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to that action,
he may make an application to the High Court under this section.
[(1A) If a person is aggrieved by a relevant costs order made in connection with an order or action to which this section applies and wishes to question its validity, the person may make an application to the High Court under this section (whether or not as part of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)) on the grounds—
(a) that the relevant costs order is not within the powers of this Act, or
(b) that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the order.]
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) [or (1A)], if the authority directly concerned with any order to which this section applies, or with any action on the part
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
Issue estoppel is a sub-species of the res judicata doctrine (see Practice Note: The doctrine of res judicata). In addition to the general key requirements for establishing a res judicata (see Practice Note: Key requirements to establish a res judicata), this Practice Note considers the specific
Case number [insert number][In the principal registryORIn the [insert court location] FAMILY court]Sitting at [insert place]Notice of actingBetween[insert petitioner name]Petitionerand[insert respondent name]RespondentTake notice that we [insert name of firm] have been appointed to act as the
This Precedent letter covers disclosure obligations under CPR 31. It does not apply to proceedings subject to the disclosure pilot scheme under CPR PD 51U. For guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts—the disclosure pilot scheme. For a client letter on
Criminal offences are generally divided into two categories: •conduct crimes, and •result crimesA conduct crime is a crime where only the forbidden conduct needs to be proved. For example, an accused is guilty of dangerous driving if they drove a motor vehicle dangerously on a road or other public
0330 161 1234