- Cited — Hexpress Healthcare Limited, R (on the application of) v The Care Quality Commission 2023-03-06
“…Procedural fairness is analysed as a feature of natural justice, see Hoffman-La Roche v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 (“Hoffman-La Roche”) at page 340C. What fairness in general, and procedural fairness in particular, requires will depend on the circumstances of the particular…”
- Cited — Rowe & Ors v Ingenious Media Holdings PLC & Ors 2021-01-15
“…In F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295, Lord Diplock described the justification more broadly as being that for this “temporary and exceptional remedy” the court could not be certain that a plaintif…”
- Cited — PN (Uganda), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2020-09-28
“… Rules were ultra vires meant that they were a nullity and of no effect, for the reasons given in Hoffmann-La Roche v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 at 365 and Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 at 155c. Ouseley J. held that while the 2005 DFT Rules were a nullity and of no effect, the pr…”
- Cited — Vodafone Ltd & Ors v The Office Of Communications 2020-02-19
“…[1975] AC 295…”
- Cited — Al-Enein, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-11-25
“…[1975] AC 295, at p.349, it was said by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest that:…”
- Cited — TN (Vietnam) & Anor, R. (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor 2018-12-19
“… 12; [2012] 1 AC, para. 66. She submits that the principle is best encapsulated by Lord Diplock in Hoffman-La Roche v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295, at 365. She also cites the approval of that passage by Lord Irvine LC in Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143, at 156.…”
- Cited — The Secretary of State for the Home Department v SM (Rwanda) 2018-12-11
“…In F Hoffmann La Roche v SSTI [1975] AC 295 at page 365, Lord Diplock said the correct term was ‘void’ in the administrative law context:…”
- Applied — Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A.S. & Ors 2018-05-15
“… principle which applies to the enforcement of cross-undertakings in injunction cases in Hoffman-La Roche & Co A.G. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295, 361:-…”