A decade and a half of deference (part 2)
| dc.contributor.author | Maree, P. J. H. | en_ZA |
| dc.contributor.author | Quinot, Geo | en_ZA |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-09-27T10:33:39Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-09-27T10:33:39Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016-10 | |
| dc.description | CITATION: 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.description | The original publication is available at https://journals.co.za/content/journal/jlc_tsar | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Hoexter 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.description.version | Publishers version | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | 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.identifier.issn | 1996-2177 (online) | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0257-7747 (print) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/104523 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_ZA | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | Juta Law | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | Juta Law | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | South African administrative-law -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | deference debate -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.title | A decade and a half of deference (part 2) | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Article | en_ZA |