Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 43Administrative Law and GovernanceJudicial and Constitutional StudiesLegal processes and jurisprudence

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TRIBUNAL JUSTICE AND PROPORTIONATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Open access
Elliott, Mark, Thomas, Robert·2012·The Cambridge Law Journal

Abstract

The tribunals system in England and Wales has been transformed by the entry into force of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007; among other things, tribunals are now located more firmly and explicitly than ever before within the judicial branch. Questions concerning the relationship between tribunals and regular courts fall to be confronted afresh within this new institutional landscape. Those questions form the focus of this article, which is particularly concerned with the issue recently considered by the Supreme Court in Cart whether, and if so to what extent, decisions taken within the tribunals system (by the Upper Tribunal) should be susceptible to judicial review by the High Court. In Cart, emphasis was placed upon the concept of “proportionate dispute resolution” as a means by which to delimit regular courts' oversight of tribunals' decisions, raising fundamental questions both of legal doctrine (relating to the relevance of the orthodox doctrinal tools of administrative law) and legal policy (concerning the degree of error on the part of a tribunal that a higher court should tolerate in the interests of the efficient, or proportionate, use of judicial resources).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0008197312000505

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jenns, 2006, Is it all downhill for second appeals?, C.J.Q., 25, 439
  2. Woolf, 1988, A Hotchpotch of Appeals – The Need for a Blender, C.J.Q., 7, 44

Metadata

Authors
Elliott, M., & Thomas, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Elliott, Mark
  • Thomas, Robert
Venue
The Cambridge Law Journal
Published
2012-06-15
Volume
71
Issue
2
Pages
297-324
ISSN
  • 0008-1973 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2139
OpenAlex
W3125559717
Cited by
43
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • The Cambridge Law Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Administrative Law and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
Keywords
tribunals, Upper Tribunal, judicial review, High Court, Supreme Court, administrative law doctrine, judicial resources

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review