R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council - significado y definición. Qué es R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council
Diclib.com
Diccionario ChatGPT
Ingrese una palabra o frase en cualquier idioma 👆
Idioma:

Traducción y análisis de palabras por inteligencia artificial ChatGPT

En esta página puede obtener un análisis detallado de una palabra o frase, producido utilizando la mejor tecnología de inteligencia artificial hasta la fecha:

  • cómo se usa la palabra
  • frecuencia de uso
  • se utiliza con más frecuencia en el habla oral o escrita
  • opciones de traducción
  • ejemplos de uso (varias frases con traducción)
  • etimología

Qué (quién) es R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council - definición


R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council         
R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton CC [2010] UKSC 20 is an English public law case involving invalid considerations of (factors considered by) a local council in making a compulsory purchase order. Judicial review was available and upheld in this case on one or more of four available grounds, namely: error of law, irrationality, serious procedural irregularity, and action for an improper purpose.
City of Wolverhampton Council elections         
  • 2004 results map
  • 2006 results map
  • 2007 results map
  • 2008 results map
  • 2010 results map
  • 2018 results map
  • 2021 results map
City of Wolverhampton Council elections are held three years out of every four, with a third of the council elected each time. City of Wolverhampton Council is the local authority for the metropolitan borough of Wolverhampton in the West Midlands, England.
1984 Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council election         
The Council elections held in Wolverhampton on Thursday 3 May 1984 were one third, and 20 of the 60 seats were up for election.

Wikipedia

R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council
R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton CC [2010] UKSC 20 is an English public law case involving invalid considerations of (factors considered by) a local council in making a compulsory purchase order. Judicial review was available and upheld in this case on one or more of four available grounds, namely: error of law, irrationality, serious procedural irregularity, and action for an improper purpose.