Template:Did you know nominations/Ouster clause
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ouster clause[edit]
- ... that in the UK a total ouster clause in a statute generally does not prevent a person from applying for judicial review of a public authority's decision, but a partial ouster clause does?
- Reviewed: Council for United Civil Rights Leadership
- Comment: The article was worked on in a sandbox and transferred to the main article space on 5 June 2013 (before this was done, "Ouster clause" was a redirect). The hook is referenced by footnotes 14–15 and 46–51.
Created by Annexue (talk), Weilun.koh (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 15:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC).
Great stuff. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's actually no need for a QPQ. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)