****rw =" ་
*
10
-
the Post Office started collecting the higher fee. One of those who paid the fee was a London lawyer. He believed that the statement in parliament had no legal effect. He brought the case to the court and the court agreed with him.
As a result, not only did the lawyer get his £10 back but 25,000 other people also got their fees back. The ultimate consequence was that the English parliament had to act very quickly to make the increase
lawful.
Wang Shuman:
AG:
Bilingual laws. Xiao Weiyun:
That example is one of judicial review. What the court reviewed
is not a law but the decision made
by the Government.
The fee was being collected as if a law had been passed. The lawyer said that that was illegal because there was no law and the tax could not be collected simply because
of a policy statement. I mentioned this example to illustrate the principle that Mr Shao was concerned with. The fact that this was a policy statement was not relevant to the illustration of the principle. Essentially, it was a challenge
by a private person to the Government for the action taken by the officials.
What would happen if the Chinese version and English version of the law contradict with eath other?
/....11
17
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.