Pros And Cons Of Airtastic

2736 Words11 Pages

A. Advise Airtastic about the legal options that are open to it to halt the actions of the protestors. Describe the legal consequences that are likely to follow if the local protestors continued to engage in their destructive actions. (40 MARKS- Your answer should be 1,000-1,200 words for this part) Introduction In this answer I intend to focus on the legal options available to Airtastic to restrict the protestors from obstructing the construction of the wind farm. I will outline the procedures Airtastic must follow if they intend to proceed with these legal options. I will also outline the legal consequences that will incur if the protestors persist in their actions. Legal Options Airtastic has many legal options available to halt the actions …show more content…

A decision of an administrative body may be set aside on the basis that it is irrational or possibly disproportionate. Conventional judicial review procedure is governed by Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to 2011, which includes amendments made by SI 691 0f 2011: Rules of the Superior Court (Judicial Review) 2011. The first step in the judicial review procedure involves the mandatory “leave stage”. At this stage an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings must first be made. The leave stage filters out, at an early stage, claims which may invalid or unsubstantial. At the leave stage Save our Birds must show that they have "sufficient interest" in the matter. In other words, they must demonstrate how the surrounding environment and wildlife are affected by the decision they wish to contest. An arguable case must be illustrated, indicating clearly their case has grounds and a reasonable chance of …show more content…

This legislation ultimately takes the power away from the high court which causes concern for the president as it appears to be unconstitutional. Firstly, the president may have concerns regarding how constitutional it is to take this issue away from the high court. According to Article 34 of the 1937 Constitution, the high court should have the power to determine whether a proposed law is valid with regard to the constitution. ° Save as otherwise provided by this Article, the jurisdiction of the High Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, and no such question shall be raised (whether by pleading, argument or otherwise) in any Court established under this or any other Article of this Constitution other than the High Court or the Supreme Court. The High Court has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not a law conflicts with the Constitution. In this case, if the proposed legislation is passed, the high court will no longer have this power. They won’t be able to decide whether or not the planning permission should be granted. By taking this power away from the High Court, it may be considered unconstitutional as the protestors cannot continue with the judicial review

Open Document