This original book fills a significant gap in legal literature by providing an exploration of research methodologies in public law, a field of research in which research methods are becoming increasingly prominent and sophisticated. Featuring thoughtful chapters written by leading scholars in the field, this book provides a thorough explanation of the key features, characteristics, and challenges of distinct methodological approaches to public law research. Divided into four broad categories; traditional, institutional, technical and critical, chapters cover a wide range of approaches, from doctrinal and interpretive methods to empirical, socio-legal, and Marxist approaches. The book promotes critical reflection on many of the most common methodological approaches and aims to demystify research methodologies in public law for new scholars and interdisciplinary researchers alike. Researching Public Law in Common Law Systems will be essential reading for academics and students in public law, suitable for advanced scholars and those who are new to the field. It will also be relevant to those with an interest in empirical methods, legal methods, and research methodologies more broadly in the social sciences.

In the modern administrative state, hundreds if not thousands of officials wield powers that can be used to the benefit or detriment of individuals and corporations. When the exercise of these powers is challenged, a great deal can be at stake. Courts are confronted with difficult questions about how to apply the general principles of administrative law in different contexts. Based on a comparative theoretical analysis of the allocation of authority between the organs of government, A Theory of Deference in Administrative Law provides courts with a methodology to apply no matter how complex the subject matter. The firm theoretical foundation of deference is fully exposed and a comprehensive doctrine of curial deference is developed for application by courts in judicial review of administrative action. A wide scope is urged, spanning the whole spectrum of government regulation, thereby ensuring wide access to public law remedies.

The year 2017 marked the 150th anniversary of Confederation and the 1867 Constitution Act. Anniversaries like these are often seized upon as opportunities for retrospection. This volume, by contrast, takes a distinctively forward-looking approach. Featuring essays from both emerging and established scholars, The Canadian Constitution in Transition reflects on the ideas that will shape the development of Canadian constitutional law in the decades to come. Moving beyond the frameworks that previous generations used to organize constitutional thinking, the scholars in this volume highlight new and innovative approaches to perennial problems, and seek new insights on where constitutional law is heading. Featuring fresh scholarship from contributors who will lead the constitutional conversation in the years ahead - and who represent the gender, ethnic, linguistic, and demographic make-up of contemporary Canada - The Canadian Constitution in Transition enriches our understanding of the Constitution of Canada, and uses various methodological approaches to chart the course toward the bicentennial.

Canadian administrative law was bedevilled for many decades by uncertainty and confusion. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada sought to bring this chaos to an end in its landmark decision Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. In A Culture of Justification, Paul Daly builds a framework for understanding why several previous reform efforts failed and assesses the proposition that Vavilov might very well succeed in providing a roadmap to a brighter future. This engaging, in-depth study of one of the most important areas of Canadian law shows readers how a newly emerged "culture of justification" allows courts and citizens to insist on the reasoned exercise of public power by the administrative state.

For centuries, courts across the common law world have developed systems of law by building bodies of judicial decisions. In deciding individual cases, common law courts settle litigation and move the law in new directions. By virtue of their place at the top of the judicial hierarchy, courts at the apex of common law systems are unique in that their decisions and, in particular, the language used in those decisions, resonate through the legal system. Although both the common law and apex courts have been studied extensively, scholars have paid less attention to the relationship between the two. By analyzing apex courts and the common law from multiple angles, this book offers an entry point for scholars in disciplines related to law - such as political science, history, and sociology - who are seeking a deeper understanding and new insights as to how the common law applies to and is relevant within their own disciplines.

Around the common law world, the law of judicial review of administrative action has changed dramatically in recent decades, accelerating a centuries-long process of incremental evolution. This book offers a fresh framework for understanding the core features of contemporary administrative law. Through comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand, the author develops an interpretive approach by reference to four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy, and decisional autonomy. The interaction of this plurality of values explains the structure of the vast field of judicial review of administrative action: institutional structures, procedural fairness, substantive review, remedies, restrictions on remedies, and the scope of judicial review. Addressing this wide array of subjects in detail, the book demonstrates how a pluralist approach, with the values being employed in a complementary and balanced fashion, can enhance our understanding of administrative law. Furthermore, such an approach can guide the future development of the law of judicial review of administrative action, a point illustrated by a careful analysis of the unsettled doctrinal area of legitimate expectation. The book closes by arguing that the author's values-based, pluralist framework supports the legitimacy of contemporary administrative law which, although sometimes called into question, facilitates the flourishing of individuals, of public administration, and of the liberal democratic system.

Canadian administrative law was bedevilled for many decades by uncertainty and confusion. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada sought to bring this chaos to an end in its landmark decision Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. In A Culture of Justification, Paul Daly builds a framework for understanding why several previous reform efforts failed and assesses the proposition that Vavilov might very well succeed in providing a roadmap to a brighter future. This engaging, in-depth study of one of the most important areas of Canadian law shows readers how a newly emerged "culture of justification" allows courts and citizens to insist on the reasoned exercise of public power by the administrative state.

East London, the early 1980s. Frank Pollack (Jeff Robert) and his sons Mark and Colin (Phil Daniels and Tim Roth) are all unemployed. The situation seems hopeless, and things are made worse when Colin's Auntie Barbara (Marion Bailey) tries to help out by offering him some decorating work, an act which arouses Mark's jealousy and ultimately effects everyone in the family. Directed by Mike Leigh and also featuring Gary Oldman as Colin's skinhead mate Coxy.