Earlier today, @suesspiciousmin tweeted that a new case might have rebooted the stream of section 20 compensation claims:
I couldn’t wait for his commentary, I had to search the case out for myself, and it is this case here: London Borough of Hackney v Williams & Anor  EWCA Civ 26 (26 January 2017).
Not least, section 20 is an issue I’ve written about on a number of previous occasions, over a number of years, including:
A review of my previous posts will reveal that I have held to a very difficult line. On the one hand, Continue reading ‘Presedent’ Revisited – Section 20 may not require consent
I’m flagging up here a couple of posts by others, a couple of posts which I’m linking together as highlighting benefits of the Human Rights Act. Both are from bloggers I’d highly recommend following anyway – @DrMarkElliott‘s Public Law for Everyone and @SteveBroach‘s Rights in Reality. Both are about recent decisions of the Supreme Court. But since they’re both legal blogs, I hope the authors won’t mind if I go back a couple of steps for a non-legal audience.
Irrationality or proportionality?
There has been a long-running debate about what happens if the State (which includes central and local government and lots of officials and bodies which make decisions on behalf of the State) does something unreasonable. Decisions have been able to be challenged by a process called judicial review, but a very old case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation  EWCA Civ 1 (10 November 1947) gave its name to a long established principle, that you can’t win a judicial review just because the State is unreasonable. Continue reading Two benefits of a Human Rights Act