Abstract
AbstractThis comment describes and critiques the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. It considers in particular the Court's position on the effect of Patel v Mirza on previous illegality case law. It analyses the enduring tensions between Patel and the House of Lords’ decision in Gray v Thames Trains, which the Supreme Court in Henderson upheld as enduringly authoritative notwithstanding the rearticulation of the illegality principle in Patel. It assesses the logical problems in the Supreme Court's position, and contextualises it as an attempt to mitigate Patel ‘s potentially disruptive effects on legal certainty.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
