Reigning in the “Prohibitive Expense” of Environmental Litigation: Edwards v Environment Agency

E-ISSN： 1757-8434|18|4|403-415

ISSN： 1085-4681

Source： Judicial Review, Vol.18, Iss.4, 2013-12, pp. : 403-415

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Related content

The Contractual Status of Agency Workers: Toms v Royal Mail

By Brodie Douglas

Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, 2006-9 ,pp. : 443-446

Edinburgh University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Ernest Metzger, Litigation in Roman Law

Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, 2006-5 ,pp. : 323-324

Edinburgh University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Australia: Acting on Opponents' Mistakes—Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd and the Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Material

By Murray Katie

Legal Ethics, Vol. 17, Iss. 1, 2014-06 ,pp. : 132-134

Hart Publishing

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Lilian Edwards and Anne Griffiths, Family Law

By Gretton George L

Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 11, Iss. 3, 2007-9 ,pp. : 462-463

Edinburgh University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Unfair dismissal: Frewin v Consignia plc The EAT resolves apparent contradictions between two earlier EAT decisions in Betty and Edwards - the fact that the employer caused the incapacity which is the ground for termination is relevant in considering the fairness of the dismissal as well as the level of compensation but does not necessarily make the dismissal unfair. (p13)

Industrial Relations Law Bulletin, Vol. 726, Iss. 1, 2003-12 ,pp. : 13-14

Industrial Relations Services

Access to resources Recommend Favorite