The Cochrane Library

What happens if my appeal is dismissed?

Judicial decisions of the Tribunal may only be challenged in such circumstances by way of Judicial Review to the High Court.  If you wish to pursue a legal challenge you should seek timely legal advice on the matter.

F-H

France (English)  - 2018 

• Response by the French NCP, 2019

France (français) - 2018

• Réponse du PCN français, 2019

Germany  - 2018

• Response by the German NCP, 2019

Review Briefing

We have developed a comprehensive briefing (published: 30 June 2020) which provides detail on the scope, nature and timing of the review.

Mark a review as helpful or unhelpful

1. On your Android phone or tablet, open the Google Maps app  .
2. Search for a place or tap it on the map.
3. At the bottom, tap the place's name or address.
4. At the top, tap Reviews.
5. Choose from the following:
   • To mark a review helpful, tap Helpful . The author is notified but your name and info aren’t shown. The total number of helpful votes is shown.
   • To mark a review unhelpful, tap Unhelpful . The author isn’t notified, and the total number of unhelpful votes isn’t displayed.

Tips:

• To remove your vote, tap the icon again.
• If the review is illegal or violates Google policy, you can report a review.
• Google shows reviews marked helpful to more people, and reviews marked unhelpful to fewer people.

Phase 1 Report: Insights to Develop Further

The Phase 1 report reflects the views of more than 100 organisations and many individuals. It is published alongside an updated analysis of the financial sustainability of colleges and universities; a the findings of a review of Regional Strategic Bodies; an international benchmarking study; and an overview of the context that supports the Phase 1 report.

• Coherence and Sustainability: A review of Scotland’s Colleges and Universities Phase One Report: Insights to Develop Further [PDF]
• The Financial Sustainability of Colleges and Universities in Scotland – Review Report [PDF]
• Review of Regional Strategic Bodies – Overview Report [PDF]
• Review of Regional Strategic Bodies – Glasgow Colleges’ Regional Board [PDF]
• Review of Regional Strategic Bodies – Lanarkshire Board [PDF]
• Review of Regional Strategic Bodies - University of the Highlands and Islands [PDF]
• International Benchmarking by Delivery Associates [PDF]
• Context to support the Review of Coherent Provision and Sustainability – Phase 1 Report [PDF]
• Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework [PDF]

Where can an invited review help?

Each client has their own issues to resolve. These have included:

• Undertaking independent critiques of proposed models of care
• Carrying out ‘health checks’ on quality and effectiveness of services
• Resolving concerns around team working
• Improving links between acute and community teams
• Developing interfaces with other service providers
• Assessing compliance with recognised standards and benchmarking with other services
• Completing workforce modelling
• Reviewing clinical risks to the service
• Assessing safety concerns following or ahead of reconfiguration
• Examining capacity, capability and effectiveness to find new ways of working to improve outcomes and reduce costs
• Assessing clinical practice

Failure to file acknowledgment of service

54.9

(1) Where a person served with the claim form has failed to file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with rule 54.8, he –

(a) may not take part in a hearing to decide whether permission should be given unless the court allows him to do so; but

(b) provided he complies with rule 54.14 or any other direction of the court regarding the filing and service of –

(i) detailed grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds; and

(ii) any written evidence,

may take part in the hearing of the judicial review.

(2) Where that person takes part in the hearing of the judicial review, the court may take his failure to file an acknowledgment of service into account when deciding what order to make about costs.

(3) Rule 8.4 does not apply.

Back to top

Latest issue

BIS Quarterly Review, September 2022 

Market swings reflected investors' evolving perception of the outlook for inflation and monetary policy during the period under review.

General

54.21

(1) This Section applies to Planning Court claims. (2) In this Section, 'Planning Court claim' means a judicial review or statutory challenge which —

(a) involves any of the following matters —

(i) planning permission, other development consents, the enforcement of planning control and the enforcement of other statutory schemes;

(ii) applications under the Transport and Works Act 1992;

(iii) wayleaves;

(iv) highways and other rights of way;

(v) compulsory purchase orders;

(vi) village greens;

(vii) European Union environmental legislation and domestic transpositions, including assessments for development consents, habitats, waste and pollution control;

(viii) national, regional or other planning policy documents, statutory or otherwise; or

(ix) any other matter the judge appointed under rule 54.22(2) considers appropriate; and

(b) has been issued or transferred to the Planning Court.

(Part 30 (Transfer) applies to transfers to and from the Planning Court.)

Back to top

Scope of the Review

The Review will take into account recent policy and other developments here and in the European Union, and address how best to provide services to people with specific mental health needs or a learning disability in accordance with the statutory equality obligations of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, with the Human Rights Act 1998, and to promote their social inclusion.

Equally, the Review will address how to promote positive mental health in society, analysing the relevance of key concepts such as community education, prevention and the promotion of mental health awareness.  The Review will undertake research to facilitate its work and will seek out exemplars of best practice which are available regionally, nationally and internationally.

The Review will also cover the role and function of the Mental Health Commission and the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and relevant social issues including education, employment, housing, and social security benefits. It will work in partnership with the Northern Ireland Office and criminal justice agencies to review therapeutic intervention with offenders who have psychiatric difficulties. Issues relating to incapacity will also be addressed.

If your personal circumstances affected your examination - exam allowances

The University has processes that provide for an allowance or an adjustment to be granted in certain circumstances - in particular, on account of illness or other grave cause in preparing for, or taking, the examination or part of the examination for the degree or other qualification concerned.

• If you are an undergraduate, MASt, MBA, EMBA, MCL, LLM, MEng, MFin, MMath, MMus, MSci, or PGCE, M.Res, M.St. or M.Phil. Degree by advanced study, find more information at: www.student-registry.admin.cam.ac.uk/about-us/EAMC
• If you are a Postgraduate B.D, M.D, Vet.M.D, Ph.D., Bus.D, Eng.D, M.Sc, M.Litt, M.Phil. Degree by dissertation or Certificate of Postgraduate Study student, you can use the Examination Review Procedure outlined above to review your examination results where "serious illness or other grave cause which has clearly impacted upon the examination itself and of which, for sufficient reason, the Examining Body were not aware" has taken place.

National Contact Points can undergo voluntary peer reviews which identify their strengths as well as areas for improvement. The peer-review procedure is governed by the 2019 Revised Core Template for Voluntary Peer Reviews of NCPs. Peer reviews are facilitated by the Secretariat and carried out by representatives of 2 to 4 different NCPs who conduct an on-site visit to the NCP under review, meet with government, business and civil society stakeholders and provide recommendations in a public report. A peer review will look at whether the NCP is functioning in a visible, accessible, transparent and accountable manner. It also explores whether the NCP handles cases in a way that is impartial, predictable, equitable and compatible with the Guidelines. Database of cases handled by NCPs   NCP Peer reviews and associated country implementation reports can be accessed below.