¶ … fictional case of Amit and his dream to sell pies out of a converted red London bus. There is apparently at least one other bus that operates in much the same way and it is operating without a problem. However, the same governing body that approved that bus has said no to Amit. When he tries to get a reason for the disapproval, he is not given one. He is similarly shut down when he tries to appeal the decision. The author of this report will assess whether the relevant governing body, that being the Wivenchester District Council, is behaving as it should when it comes to the denial and the explanation thereof. There will also be a discussion of whether Amit has a viable claim when it comes to acting against the Wivenchester District Council for the way that they have handled the decision and whether they have complied with the relevant laws. There is also question as to whether the law itself is acceptable in its form and function. The second part of this report will talk about the concept of proportionality and how/whether it is adopted as a common law ground of judicial review in both England and Wales. While the law typically works well for everyone involved, laws that are poorly written, enforced in a biased way or enforced in an uneven way can create a disservice to a lot of people.
Part I -- Amit vs. WDC
As noted above, Amit has encountered a number of problems when it comes to opening his food bus. Even so, it would seem that he has a number of grounds to appeal and fight for his food bus because the manner in which the Wivenchester District Council is handling the matter up to and including no explanation for why the denial was issued, no chance for appeal and the possible conflict of interest between the chairman and one of Amit's rivals, just to name three big ones. The first problem with the denied application that will be looked into is the fact that there is no definitive reason or explanation given for the denial (Weinstein 2015). Indeed, the Wivenchester District Council has the right to review the licensing application and deny it if the application or the person making is not up to snuff with the relevant laws and standards. However, those laws and standards should be clearly defined. Unless the Food Act of 2001 leaves this discretion entirely up to the people on the council (unlikely), then there has to be a specific reason why Amit's application would be denied. Beyond that, Amit has every right to know why the license application was denied so that he can remediate the deficiency (or deficiencies), argue that he is not deficient if he truly believes he is not and so forth. In short, the Wivenchester District Council has to have a reason to deny his claim and Amit has a right to know what that reason is. Making Amit appeal (even if he could) to find this out is a huge waste of time and money for the Wivenchester District Council because those reasons should be defined and explained before any appeal is even considered (Croddy, Degelman, Doggett & Hayes 1997).
As already alluded to above, the fact that an appeal is rejected outright is also not acceptable. If the Food Act of 2001 says that no appeals are allowed, that would technically suffice in many situations. However, it can absolutely be argued that an appeal process can and should be in place and it perhaps should also be argued that the party that hears the appeal of Amit should not be the Wivenchester District Council. In fact, it should be another party and for more than reason. First, asking the Wivenchester District Council to hear the same case twice is kind of pointless. The odds that the same party would come to a different conclusion about the same matter is extremely unlikely unless Amit omitted something from his application, something was otherwise wrong with the application or something along those lines. Given the details of the story, that is probably not the problem. Indeed, the bigger problem is that Amit is being given no amount of due process to rectify what he feels to be the wrong decision. This would hold true even if there were no perceptions about conflict of interest, which is an issue but has not been fully covered yet (Steinbrook, Kassirer & Angell 2015).
Even at a high level, the fact that the chairman...
Fault: An Alternative to the Current Tort-Based System in England and Wales The United Kingdom statistics regarding claims THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM OBSTACLES TO DUE PROCESS THE CASE FOR REFORM THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THE RISING COST OF LITIGATION LORD WOOLF'S REFORMS MORE COST CONTROLS THE UNITED STATES PAUL'S PULLOUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TORT REFORM IN AMERICA FLEEING PHYSICIANS STATISTICS FOR ERROR, INJURY AND DEATH THE CALL FOR REFORM IN 2003: A FAMILIAR REFRAIN THE UNITED STATES SITUATION, IN SUMMARY NEW ZEALAND CASE STUDIES THE SWEDISH SCHEME COMPARISON: WHICH SYSTEM IS
The respondents also believed that premiums should be adjusted based on an organizations willingness to introduce and enforce health and safety standards. 5. Safety representatives-these representatives serve the purpose of serving notices or organizations when breaches in safety and health standards take place. 6. Occupational Health and Rehabilitation -- a significant percentage or respondents believe that there needs to be greater access to occupational health services for employees. The respondents also
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now