![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Badge_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/640px-Badge_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2).
R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 35[1] was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that affirmed the decision of the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) despite new evidence subsequently coming to light.[2] The case dismissed an attempt to set aside R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61 on the grounds that the British government had failed to disclose a feasibility study relating to the Chagos Islands.
Quick Facts R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Court ...
R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
Full case name | R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs |
Argued | 22 June 2015 |
Decided | 29 June 2016 |
Neutral citation | [2016] UKSC 35 |
Case history | |
Prior history | [2008] UKHL 61 |
Holding | |
The decision in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61 would not be set aside. | |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke |
Dissent | Lady Hale, Lord Kerr |
Area of law | |
Judicial review; British Overseas Territories |
Close