Private Law
Amirhosseyn Alizadeh; Mohammadbaqer Parsapoor
Abstract
The process of acquisition of land in English and Iranian law takes place under a specific procedure that may be questioned for validity. One type of the examining of objection is judicial review, which is high supervisory, will be applied in such manner that all actions will be in accordance with the ...
Read More
The process of acquisition of land in English and Iranian law takes place under a specific procedure that may be questioned for validity. One type of the examining of objection is judicial review, which is high supervisory, will be applied in such manner that all actions will be in accordance with the elements that are necessary for acquisition. The source of the judicial review is different between English jurisprudence, so three views have been put forward on the subject that compilation of ultra vires doctrine with common law, has excelled. But in Iran, despite judicial precedent effort, the law-based view remains dominant. The English judicial precedent has also taken appropriate steps in the development of this theory in the law of acquisition of land and has outlined various ways in motives of judicial review; substantive ultra vires and procedural ultra vires, infringement human rights, legitimate expectation, natural justice, proportionality, unreasonableness. However, the English judicial precedent has made some exceptions as general policies of the country. The major of decisions in judicial review in acquisition of land, are in the form of quash. However, there are some cases in the English judicial precedent that have been cited another decision.
Private Law
Amirhosseyn Alizadeh; Mohammadbagher Parsapour
Abstract
In order to implement public projects which are carried out by the executive systems, apart from the ownership, the owners of the property in these projects' realm may be affected by the implementation of public projects. The question is whether the executive system can be held liable for such damages? ...
Read More
In order to implement public projects which are carried out by the executive systems, apart from the ownership, the owners of the property in these projects' realm may be affected by the implementation of public projects. The question is whether the executive system can be held liable for such damages? This is one of the most important issues in many countries, which has sometimes been overlooked. In the present article, this issue has been studied in an analytical and comparative manner in the Iranian judicial procedure. In general, British law's spoken about three types of damages: damages resulting from the ownership of a part of the property; damages resulting from the type of work and exploitation of the project and damages resulting from the deprivation (disturbance) of rights. Determining the compensation in the first case is done on the base of three rules of concurrent value or value reduction and the rule of before and after, and in the second case is based on the method of payment of damages in the scope of civil liability and in the third case, is based on the evaluation of relocation costs or completion of business activities. Iranian law and judicial precedent have no corresponding rules regarding the damages of the first and second types, and the judicial procedure does not provide a clear criterion for damages of the third type. In some cases, determining the compensation is subject to the agreement of the parties or to the extent of definite damages. However, it seems that in Iranian law, based on accepted rules and principles, it's possible to provide acceptable justification for the application of rules in British law.
