Natural justice meaning

This Checklist identifies some of the key preliminary issues to be considered before bringing a claim for judicial review in the Administrative Court, with links to further guidance on each of the issues raised. Action / issue: Are there arguable grounds to issue a judicial review claim? Further guidance: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used—on what grounds may a claim be brought? Grounds of judicial review—illegality; Illegality in general: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [14] Grounds of judicial review—unreasonableness Grounds of judicial review—procedural impropriety; Procedural fairness: in general: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [26]; Natural justice and fairness: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [29]; The right to a fair hearing: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [38] Grounds of judicial review—breach of legitimate expectation; Legitimate expectations: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [28] Action / issue: Do you have standing (locus standi) to pursue judicial review? ...

Mergers Court of Justice dismisses appeals by German energy utility companies regarding Commission’s decision to approve the acquisition by E.ON of the distribution and retail energy business as well as certain general assets of Innogy The Court of Justice has handed down its judgments in joined appeals C-171/24 P, C-172/24 P, C-173/24 P, C-174/24 P, C-175/24 P, C-176/24 P, C-177/24 P, C-178/24 P, and C-179/24 P, brought by German energy utilities against the Commission. These challenges targeted the General Court’s rulings that had rejected actions seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision conditionally authorising a related transaction involving E.ON and RWE’s assets. Each appeal was dismissed by the Court of Justice. The nine appeals concerned the General Court’s judgments in cases T-53/21, T-55/21, T-56/21, T-58/21, T-59/21, T-61/21, T-62/21, T-64/21, and T-53/21, which upheld the Commission’s 17 September 20219 decision conditionally clearing the acquisition by RWE of E.ON’s renewable and nuclear electricity generation assets (M.8870). The Court of Justice dismissed all nine appeals. Background RWE and E.ON are...

What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling has meaningful consequences for advisers working on intra‑EU investment disputes and on enforcement tactics. Strategic seat selection: The judgment confirms that choosing a seat outside the EU—most notably Singapore—can shield ECT arbitrations from intra‑EU objections grounded in Achmea and Komstroy. Although those CJEU authorities expose intra‑EU awards to challenge within the Union, they do not impugn the validity of such awards in jurisdictions beyond the EU framework. Seat selection is therefore a critical strategic choice from the outset of any intra‑EU investor‑State dispute. Enforcement planning: Award creditors should look to enforce in non‑EU courts that are not bound by EU law doctrines. The SICC’s firm rejection of the intra‑EU objection outlines a clear path to enforcement outside the EU, offering a practical alternative where courts in EU Member States may decline recognition and enforcement. Definition of ‘investment’: The court’s refusal to apply the Salini criteria where the treaty provides its own definition of ‘investment’...

Project One London Ltd v VMA Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 3304 (TCC) What was the background? The parties contracted for the design and installation of mechanical services under their sub-contract, adopting the JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract Agreement Conditions 2016. The agreement included standard interim payment mechanisms, operating in the usual way. VMA lodged Application for Payment No. 8, stating £106,434.88 as the amount due (the Notified Sum). POL failed to issue either a payment notice or a pay less notice at any point. Project One Limited (POL) initiated a TVA. VMA relied on POL’s non-payment of the Notified Sum as a defence, contending on jurisdictional and/or substantive grounds that the TVA could not proceed in the face of that non-payment, and asking the adjudicator to require POL to pay the Notified Sum without delay. The adjudicator determined that VMA had made a valid Application for Payment and that POL had not served a valid Payment Notice and/or Pay Less Notice; it therefore followed that the Notified Sum...

Allocation of jurisdiction within the UK under the CJJA 1982 This Practice Note explores how jurisdiction is apportioned across the UK under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982). It examines the scope of that regime and the conditions that must be satisfied for it to apply, and considers its interaction with Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) (the Regulation). It sets out the primary rule together with the departures from it, and, lastly, addresses forum non conveniens in this setting. The CJJA’s intra-UK jurisdiction framework is designed to furnish rules allocating jurisdiction inside the UK itself. Distinct rules and factors arise when assessing whether UK courts possess jurisdiction over a claim that contains an international dimension. The UK comprises four countries, yet there are only three legal jurisdictions, and CJJA 1982, s 50, describes each as ‘parts of the UK’. England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Practitioners in England engaged in cross-border disputes must be cognisant of a range...

This Practice Note reflects the law as it is understood in England. Local authorities and other public bodies owe a general obligation to act fairly. This applies to both process and substance, and stems from the two fundamental rules of natural justice, namely that: no one should be a judge in their own cause (nemo judex in causa sua), and issues are to be decided after hearing from both or all parties involved (audi alteram partem) The modern duty of fairness is a flexible, context‑dependent principle requiring those consulting or making decisions on the public’s behalf to act—and be seen to act—in a way that is demonstrably fair in all the circumstances, and untainted by any actual or perceived personal or other extraneous interest. Public authority decisions affected by actual or apparent bias (a prejudice towards a particular outcome) or by predetermination (where decision‑makers have settled the matter and closed their minds before the decision is formally taken) are, therefore, incompatible with the...

Prepared in collaboration with 4 Pump Court, this Practice Note condenses the choices open to a party aiming to stop enforcement of an adjudication decision, while also signposting grounds the court has dismissed or rejected. The courts adopt a pro-enforcement stance towards adjudication outcomes and, as set out below, the instances in which a decision will not be enforced (or a stay of execution will be ordered) are tightly constrained. Summary of grounds for resisting enforcement The court will refrain from enforcing an adjudicator’s decision, or grant a stay of execution, only in narrowly defined situations: the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction (see Practice Note: Grounds for a jurisdictional challenge in an adjudication) there was a serious or material breach of natural justice in the adjudication (see Practice Note: Breach of natural justice in adjudication) the referring party is insolvent and/or there is a risk of dissipation of the awarded sum (see Practice Note: Adjudication—resisting enforcement using a stay of execution) fraud occurred during...