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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Machine learning systems are known to have various issues relating to bias, unfairness, and discrimination in decisions 9 , as well as to transparency, explainability, and accountability in terms of oversight 10 , and to data protection, privacy, and other human rights issues 11 , among others.”
From Administrative law and the machines of government: judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration
Posner, R. A. (1973) · The Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1086/467503 · Cited by 684
The Right to Appeal and Workable Systems of Justice
Nobles, R., & Schiff, D. (2002) · Modern Law Review · doi:10.1111/1468-2230.00403 · Cited by 45
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO APPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW?
Sunkin, M. (1987) · Modern Law Review · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1987.tb01720.x · Cited by 27
Tribunal Reform: Proportionate Dispute Resolution and the Pursuit of Administrative Justice
Adler, M. E. (2006) · Modern Law Review · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00618.x · Cited by 18
Precedent in tribunals and the development of principles
Buck, T. (2006) · DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Jenns, 2006, Is it all downhill for second appeals?, C.J.Q., 25, 439
- Woolf, 1988, A Hotchpotch of Appeals – The Need for a Blender, C.J.Q., 7, 44
Cited by
Cobbe, J. (2019) · Legal Studies · doi:10.1017/lst.2019.9 · Cited by 174
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
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-06-15
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 297-324
- ISSN
- 0008-1973 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2139
- OpenAlex
- W3125559717
- Semantic Scholar
- b04da0f6871f79aefdb377cbb35d2e7f575c9880
- 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
- Open access
- Licence
- 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