Suchergebnisse

The development of the modern law of government liability -- The constitutional and juridical basis for the South African revolutionary trend -- The constitutional cause of action -- The statutory cause of action -- Bureaucratic negligence -- Negligent performance of statutory duties -- Deliberate misconduct -- Causation, damage, and contributory fault -- Police investigative duties and public interest immunity -- Police investigative duties : the Canadian approach -- Common-law immunities -- Statutory limitations -- The common law of vicarious liability -- Scope and course of employment -- Contemporary comparative developments -- Contemporary perspectives on public law damages -- Constitutional damages -- Aggravated and examplary damages: England, Australia and New Zealand -- Punitive damages and other awards: Canada -- Delictuals damages: South Africa

This article takes a critical look at the divergent approaches of courts in constructing the meaning of actual and apparent bias in adjudicative contexts. It argues that while proving actual bias on the part of an adjudicator may not always be easy and parties often revert to apprehended bias, an allegation of bias in any adjudication process is a matter that courts take very seriously. This notwithstanding, the courts have failed to consistently demarcate the necessary elements and threshold of proof that complainants must overcome to secure a successful challenge of decisions based on adjudicative impartiality. Upon critical evaluation of the decisions on the subject so far rendered, this article suggests that the pattern which has seemingly emerged is that which weighs the allegations of bias against the presumption of impartiality and the requirements of the double reasonableness test.