- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Natural justice edit
- ... that the legal concept of natural justice is associated with two aspects of a fair hearing: audi alteram partem and nemo iudex in causa sua?
- ALT 1 ... that in the 1852 case Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Proprietors, natural justice was breached as the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case he was judging?
- ALT 2 ... that common law rules of natural justice do not require public authorities to give reasons for their decisions?
- Reviewed: Changzhou comb
Created/expanded by Jaschanmeiwen (talk), JD Chuckles (talk), Sep ff7 (talk), and Yiyang.chen.2010 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 17:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note to reviewer: The expansion took place at Talk:Natural justice/Smuconlaw sandbox and was later pasted in. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
For original hook and ALT2. Impressive looking article with a substantial amount of offline sources. Wish I could approve ALT1, as I feel it is the best hook, but while the hook fact is clearly mentioned in the article it lacks any supporting citation in the location the case is discussed in detail. Repeated mentions of the case in other sections of the article might provide sufficient sourcing to support the hook but I am unable to verify due to offline sourcing and article text in those sections not providing enough details about facts in the hook. --Allen3 talk 11:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
