Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRodriguez Ferrere, Marcelo
dc.date.available2019-01-31T03:18:58Z
dc.date.copyright2016
dc.identifier.citationRodriguez Ferrere, M. B., ‘The functional convergence of appeal and judicial review’ (2016) New Zealand L. R. 157.en_NZ
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/8824
dc.description.abstract"Judicial review is not the same as appeal" is one of the more common epithets found in administrative law in New Zealand. As neat as it is, however, it is not truly reflective of reality. Often, when considering the determinations of administrative decision-makers, a court will find itself engaging in the same task in judicial review proceedings as it does in certain types of appeal. Despite that functional similarity, however, courts have insisted that the distinction between the procedures is a valid one. In this article, I argue that the epithet about is a significant overstatement, and that in administrative law, there is no functional distinction between review and two types of appeal: those on questions of law and against exercises of discretion. In making my argument, I will first outline the different procedures, before showing that the rationales for differentiating them from one another are no longer sufficient and that the distinction is no longer desirable.en_NZ
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen_NZ
dc.publisherLexisNexisen_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofNew Zealand Law Reviewen_NZ
dc.subjectAdministrative Lawen_NZ
dc.subjectJudicial Reviewen_NZ
dc.subjectNew Zealanden_NZ
dc.titleThe Functional Convergence of Appeal and Judicial Reviewen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.date.updated2019-01-30T22:54:35Z
otago.schoolUniversity of Otago Faculty of Lawen_NZ
otago.bitstream.startpage157en_NZ
otago.openaccessOpenen_NZ
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record