Is [1992] 1 AC 1 still good law?

This case has been given negative treatment in 1 later judgment(s) in this dataset (e.g. doubted or not followed), so its authority may be qualified — verify before relying on it.

How many times has [1992] 1 AC 1 been cited?

[1992] 1 AC 1 is cited by 2 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[1992] 1 AC 1

· cited by 2 · influence score 13/100

Is it still good law? ⚠️ This case has negative treatment (1 citation(s): e.g. doubted / not followed / overruled). Check carefully before relying on it.

How to cite

[1992] 1 AC 1

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Treatment

Cited · 1Not followed · 1

Citation network

Cited by (2)

Cited — Piffs Elm Limited, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration in England & Anor. 2023-05-10
“…v Croydon London Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 670; [2022] PTSR 1568, paragraphs 73, 75 and 79, citing Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1992] 1 AC 1).…”
Not followed — Piffs Elm Limited, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration in England & Anor. 2023-05-10
“…v Croydon London Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 670; [2022] PTSR 1568, paragraphs 73, 75 and 79, citing Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1992] 1 AC 1). Second, it does not follow that local authorities must have such a power simply because two authorities have purported to exercise such a power. Mr Coppel su…”

[1992] 1 AC 1

Treatment

Citation network

Cited by (2)

Frequently cited alongside