ITEM VIEW

A decade and a half of deference (part 2)

dc.contributor.authorMaree, P. J. H.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorQuinot, Geoen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-27T10:33:39Z
dc.date.available2018-09-27T10:33:39Z
dc.date.issued2016-10
dc.identifier.citationMaree, P.J.H. & Quinot, G. 2016. A decade and a half of deference (part 2). Journal of South African Law / Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 2016(3):447-466.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn1996-2177 (online)
dc.identifier.issn0257-7747 (print)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/104523
dc.descriptionCITATION: Maree, P.J.H. & Quinot, G. 2016. A decade and a half of deference (part 2). Journal of South African Law / Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg, 2016(3):447-466.en_ZA
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at https://journals.co.za/content/journal/jlc_tsaren_ZA
dc.description.abstractHoexter and O’Regan J established deference as a prominent topic and principle, respectively. In doing so, both Hoexter and O’Regan J drew on Dyzenhaus’s conception of “deference as respect”. His conception of deference as respect follows from an attempt to respond to the following questions: “How should judges in common law jurisdictions respond to administrative determinations of the law? Should they defer to such determinations or evaluate them in accordance with their sense of what the right determination should have been?”en_ZA
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherJuta Lawen_ZA
dc.subjectSouth African administrative-law -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectdeference debate -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.titleA decade and a half of deference (part 2)en_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
dc.description.versionPublishers versionen_ZA
dc.rights.holderJuta Lawen_ZA


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

ITEM VIEW