The grammar of administrative justice values

References

• Adams, A., & Prassl, J. (2017). Vexatious claims: Challenging the case for employment tribunal fees. Modern Law Review, 80(3), 412–442.10.1111/mlr.2017.80.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, M. (2003). A socio-legal approach to administrative justice. Law & Policy, 25(4), 323–352.10.1111/lapo.2003.25.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. (2010a). Developing principles of administrative justice.
   Google Scholar
• Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. (2010b). Principles of administrative justice.
   Google Scholar
• Allan, T. R. S. (2016). Law, democracy and constitutionalism: Reflections on Evans v Attorney General. Cambridge Law Journal, 75, 38–61.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan, D., Dymond, A., Halliday, S., and Hunter, C. (2017). Reconsidering mandatory reconsideration. Public Law, 215.
   Google Scholar
• Ekins, R., & Forsyth, C. (2015). Judging the public interest: The Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Courts. London: Judicial Power Project.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, M. (2015a). A tangled constitutional web: The black-spider memos and the British constitution’s relational architecture. Public Law, 539.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, M. (2015b). Beyond the European convention: Human rights and the common law. Current Legal Problems, 68, 85–117.10.1093/clp/cuv009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, M. (2017). Unison in the Supreme Court: Tribunal fees, constitutional rights and the rule of law. Public Law for Everyone. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/07/26/unison-in-the-supreme-court-employment-fees-constitutional-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/10.1093/he/9780198765899.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, T. (2017). Evans v Attorney General: The underlying normativity of constitutional disagreement. In S. Juss & M. Sunkin (Eds.), Landmark cases in public law (pp. 285–392). Oxford: Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, G., & Webber, G. (2013a). A grammar of public law. German Law Journal, 14(12), 2137.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, G., & Webber, G. (2013b). Rationalism in public law. Modern Law Review, 76(4), 708–734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. A. G. (1979). The political constitution. Modern Law Review, 42, 1–21.10.1111/mlr.1979.42.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, L. (2017). Government’s employment tribunal fees are ‘illegal’, Supreme Court rules. The Telegraph, Retrieved July 26, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/26/governments-employment-tribunal-fees-illegal-supreme-court-rules/
   Google Scholar
• Kimbell, L., & Bailey, J. (2017). Prototyping and the new spirit of policy-making. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 13(3), 214–226.10.1080/15710882.2017.1355003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loach, K. ( Director). (2016). I, Daniel Blake.
   Google Scholar
• Loughlin, M. (2005). The functionalist style in public law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 55(3), 361–403.10.1353/tlj.2005.0020
   Google Scholar
• Mashaw, J. L. (1974). The management side of due process: Some theoretical and litigation notes on the assurance of accuracy, fairness and timeliness in the adjudication of social welfare claims. Cornell Law Review, 59, 772.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mashaw, J. L. (1983). Bureaucratic justice: Managing social security disability claims. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mashaw, J. L. (2006). Accountability and institutional design: Some thoughts on the grammar of governance. In M. W. Dowdle (Ed.), Public accountability, designs, dilemmas and experiences (pp. 115–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2012). Introducing a fee charging regime into Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Impact assessment, IA TS007.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2015). Tribunal and gender recognition statistics quarterly: January to March 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Justice. (2016). Transforming our justice system.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, P. (2013). The Prince and the paper: Disclosing Prince Charles’s advocacy correspondence. Cambridge Law Journal, 72, 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nason, S. (2017). Administrative justice in Wales: A new egalitarianism? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39(1), 115–135.10.1080/09649069.2016.1272793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nason, S. (2016). Reconstructing judicial review. Oxford: Hart.
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien, N. (2012). Administrative justice: A libertarian Cinderella in search of an Egalitarian Prince. The Political Quarterly, 83(3), 494–501.10.1111/poqu.2012.83.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, N. (2017). Administrative justice in the wake of I, Daniel Blake. The Political Quarterly (Online publication).
   Google Scholar
• Oakeshott, M. (1991). Rationalism in politics and other essays. Carmel, IN: Liberty Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (2009a). Principles of Good Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (2009b). Principles of Good Complaint Handling.
   Google Scholar
• Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (2009c). Principles for Remedy.
   Google Scholar
• Partington, M. (1999). Restructuring administrative justice? The redress of citizens' grievances. Current Legal Problems, 52, 173–199.10.1093/clp/52.1.173
   Google Scholar
• Partington, M. (2017). Overview of users’ perspectives, feedback from small groups, and discussion of ways forward. UK Administrative Justice Institute Researching User Perspectives Workshop.
   Google Scholar
• Sossin, L. (in press). Designing administrative justice. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, J. (2017). A primer on the digitisation of administrative tribunals.
   Google Scholar
• UK Administrative Justice Institute. (2017a). Researching users’ perspectives – report from a UKAJI workshop. UK Administrative Justice Institute Blog. Retrieved February 15, from https://ukaji.org/2017/02/15/researching-users-perspectives-report-from-a-ukaji-workshop/
   Google Scholar
• UK Administrative Justice Institute. (2017b). Research roadmap – where have we been and where do we need to go with research on administrative justice? UK Administrative Justice Institute Blog. Retrieved August 10, 2017, from https://ukaji.org/2017/08/10/research-roadmap-where-have-we-been-and-where-do-we-need-to-go-with-research-on-administrative-justice/
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. (2013). Political political theory: An inaugural lecture. Journal of Political Philosophy, 21, 1–23.10.1111/jopp.2013.21.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar