Breaking News - Judge kicks out SISU's judicial review against CCC / ACL (4 Viewers)

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

Judicial reviews have the highest threshold in application process. being struck out does not mean the end of the claim, most claims get struck out at the first and second occasion, its really a judge saying " your claim has no real chance of success on the basis as it stands ". so to answer the question made previously about why would they be considering their next steps?? the barristers will consider re working/wording their claim to the tune of the judge

Nonleagueherewecome · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
Judicial reviews have the highest threshold in application process. being struck out does not mean the end of the claim, most claims get struck out at the first and second occasion, its really a judge saying " your claim has no real chance of success on the basis as it stands ". so to answer the question made previously about why would they be considering their next steps?? the barristers will consider re working/wording their claim to the tune of the judge

Hiya dickwad! Here to eat some humble pie? You lose! You lose with big-time egg-on-face!

duffer · Aug 6, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Well personally I think too much emphasis is being placed on one case. Understandable, as it's the day it's thrown out... but come tomorrow there'll be another soap opera episode!

See your point, but now I think about it, it's actually a pretty big case.

With this put to bed (assuming no successful appeal), I think it means that ACL can sit and wait SISU out. Fundamentally this earns them a lot of breathing space - the Council hold the mortgage, so they're not going to be foreclosed at any point soon, all ACL need is enough to keep them ticking over.

SISU though, they're in a terrible place. Revenue is going to fall through the floor at Northampton as the reality of less tickets and less sponsorship bites. But their biggest cost, player wages, remains and they've still got to pay rent.

The only way to cut player wages is to lose our better players, and that's always going to impact results. As the team does worse, then the even less people go. In the meantime, SISU have to build a new stadium. It's just not tenable.

I think that SISU go pop long before ACL in this scenario. The only play they've got left is negotiate honestly to come back to the Ricoh, or hope against hope that they get a buyer before the club drops out of the league. imho.

skybluehugh · Aug 6, 2013

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
My comment was specifically about negotiating style and even more particularly about the public statements that were made - rather than the context of the overall position.

You may recall that I've said before that I thought that whilst SISU had a poor legal position, they had a strong moral position over the rent - but seemed to go out of their way to blow it!

The problem is that this negotiating style and the related issue of trust are very significant where SISU's desired end game is ownership of the Ricoh.

I really don't know if we could now (or in the short term) get to a position where the Council would have sufficient trust in SISU to sell them the stadium even if they were to make a sensible offer.

And that is were I have my biggest issue with people who say the rent was to high. I do not have a problem with the statement i agree with it. But rather than sit down with ACL and give them genuine reasons why the rent needed to be lower e.g. relegation (due to their incompetence and lack of investment), smaller crowds and such. But no they had to go in all guns blazing with no willingness to talk or compromise. it just did not make any sense other than if they wanted the whole complex, and feck the consequences for our football club.

italiahorse · Aug 6, 2013

Paxman II said:
Yes but in all walks of life damage is always repairable, it just needs the will of both sides to do it. As I said on another post, where does the road go if not?

It will take time to heal what sisu have done.

italiahorse · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
Judicial reviews have the highest threshold in application process. being struck out does not mean the end of the claim, most claims get struck out at the first and second occasion, its really a judge saying " your claim has no real chance of success on the basis as it stands ". so to answer the question made previously about why would they be considering their next steps?? the barristers will consider re working/wording their claim to the tune of the judge

Lets hope they drag it out several times then. After all CCFC are paying. :facepalm:

duffer · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
Judicial reviews have the highest threshold in application process. being struck out does not mean the end of the claim, most claims get struck out at the first and second occasion, its really a judge saying " your claim has no real chance of success on the basis as it stands ". so to answer the question made previously about why would they be considering their next steps?? the barristers will consider re working/wording their claim to the tune of the judge

I'm sorry but that is, once again, utter rubbish. This is the judge saying, your claim is without merit, go away and pay the other sides costs. They can appeal it, but that's that.

On what possible basis could they restart the process with a new JR? They'd have to begin with an entirely new point of law. One that somehow avoids the judge's point that they themselves attempted to gain commercial advantage by paying the legally due rent, and that shot down the case before it started.

I think you've shot your bolt with regard to your claims to expertise. Sorry.

skybluehugh · Aug 6, 2013

Paxman II said:
Yes but in all walks of life damage is always repairable, it just needs the will of both sides to do it. As I said on another post, where does the road go if not?

Not if you kill the one thing that gave you advantage, CCFC

fernandopartridge · Aug 6, 2013

I doubt very much Coventry City will see out the season.

skybluehugh · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
Judicial reviews have the highest threshold in application process. being struck out does not mean the end of the claim, most claims get struck out at the first and second occasion, its really a judge saying " your claim has no real chance of success on the basis as it stands ". so to answer the question made previously about why would they be considering their next steps?? the barristers will consider re working/wording their claim to the tune of the judge

Thats a better statement than you but on the CCFC website.

fernandopartridge · Aug 6, 2013

duffer said:
I'm sorry but that is, once again, utter rubbish. This is the judge saying, your claim is without merit, go away and pay the other sides costs. They can appeal it, but that's that.

On what possible basis could they restart the process with a new JR? They'd have to begin with an entirely new point of law. One that somehow avoids the judge's point that they themselves attempted to gain commercial advantage by paying the legally due rent, and that shot down the case before it started.

I think you've shot your bolt with regard to your claims to expertise. Sorry.

It sounds a bit more like a technicality - he's not made a judgement about whether state aid was offered as such. I was under the impression that the £14m loan was provided before SISU stopped paying the rent.

hutch1972 · Aug 6, 2013

CCFC_GT said:
In a discussion I had with TSB this is what he told me:-

When I replied that was interesting to hear and asked exactly what were his qualifications and experience he didn't answer ... strange that.

The judge took no time at all to see what we did months ago , a blatant attempt to distress another company by withholding monies owed to gain favourable decisions over the stadium.
You could almost call it blackmail.
Now FL will you take feckin notice.

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

duffer said:
I'm sorry but that is, once again, utter rubbish. This is the judge saying, your claim is without merit, go away and pay the other sides costs. They can appeal it, but that's that.

On what possible basis could they restart the process with a new JR? They'd have to begin with an entirely new point of law. One that somehow avoids the judge's point that they themselves attempted to gain commercial advantage by paying the legally due rent, and that shot down the case before it started.

I think you've shot your bolt with regard to your claims to expertise. Sorry.

er, i dont have to explain myself, but i can explain the law to you. you can not simply appeal a judicial review! you can only appeal a decision of a judge being 'plainly wrong'. when a case is struck out, which this case is, you can simply put the claim back in, but with other evidence / terminology. by the way, judicial reviews are used also to appeal

duffer · Aug 6, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
It sounds a bit more like a technicality - he's not made a judgement about whether state aid was offered as such. I was under the impression that the £14m loan was provided before SISU stopped paying the rent.

It's not a technicality. A technicality would be something like not submitting the correct papers in time.

The judge analysed the facts, and applied the law.

"I am not persuaded that there is an arguable case that the loan by the council constituted an unlawful state aid.

"It was made on commercial terms, in order to protect the council's investment in ACL, in circumstances where ACL's bank was threatening to hold ACL in default.

"The alternatives would appear to have been either the insolvency of ACL which (largely because the claimants had caused rent to be withheld as a means of exerting pressure in the commercial negotiations, which had led to an unsatisfied judgment of the High Court in ACL's favour) was not in a position to pay the loan, or acceptance of the claimants' proposals which the council did not consider to be in its commercial interests.

"It is clear from public statements made by members of the council, in particular councillor Mutton, that at least some members (of the council) have a strong animosity towards the claimants.

"However, I do not accept that this demonstrates that the council made its decision to offer a loan to ACL for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

"Its purpose was the legitimate commercial purpose of protecting investment in ACL.

"The claim that the decision was ultra vires (unlawful) is dependent on a showing of an improper purpose and therefore has no independent life once it is determined that the council's purpose was not improper."

No technicalities there. In fact in legal terms that seems a remarkably straightforward judgement. The council's purpose was proper, to protect it's investment, and was made at commercial terms. On that basis it would waste the court's time to take this case any further.

He has quite clearly said that this is not unlawful state aid.

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

the judge was right, sisu were distressing ccc, there is nothing wrong with that though. what would have been morally wrong would have been ACL selling to sisu due to said distress, however that would not have been ilegal. the reason the claim was struck out was because the claim was made regards the 14 million 'loan', sisu are saying that loan was improper becuase it stopped the distress they were causing acl, from leading to their taking over the Ricoh, but NOT in those words obviously. no, the claim would have been based on non proper use of tax monies to back up acl against sisu. so what the judge is saying : your complaining about their actions when in reality you were acting in just the same light (but not in those words). as i said, judicial reviews are notoriously hard claims (because they are so huge in compensation) the threshold is higher than most other courts - so strike outs occur at the first stage hearing 8 times out of 10. that does not stop sisu from returning at all.

TheRoyalScam · Aug 6, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
It sounds a bit more like a technicality - he's not made a judgement about whether state aid was offered as such. I was under the impression that the £14m loan was provided before SISU stopped paying the rent.

Mr Justice Males: "I am not persuaded that there is an arguable case that the loan by the council constituted an unlawful state aid.It was made on commercial terms, in order to protect the council's investment in ACL, in circumstances where ACL's bank was threatening to hold ACL in default."
Sounds pretty unequivocal to me.

SISU stopped paying the rent 31/03/2012. CCCouncil called their bluff by taking over the £14m Yorkshire Bank mortgage mid-January 2013, over 9 months later.

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

It is clear from public statements made by members of the council, in particular councillor Mutton, that at least some members (of the council) have a strong animosity towards the claimants.

remember i was saying last week : remember mutton? now you know why.

he will feature again because of certain statements he made about sisu and the 'loan'

this is not over at all, the judge has actually pointed to the correct course of claim, that is the wrongful use of council monies, to prop up their investment. the council can not do that with out prior agreement from the public, it is public money - (not central government money as used by other clubs) - public money to invest is one matter, public money to prop up a failing and about to be wound up business is another... take it from me, judicial review not over at all

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
the judge was right, sisu were distressing ccc, there is nothing wrong with that though. what would have been morally wrong would have been ACL selling to sisu due to said distress, however that would not have been ilegal. the reason the claim was struck out was because the claim was made regards the 14 million 'loan', sisu are saying that loan was improper becuase it stopped the distress they were causing acl, from leading to their taking over the Ricoh, but NOT in those words obviously. no, the claim would have been based on non proper use of tax monies to back up acl against sisu. so what the judge is saying : your complaining about their actions when in reality you were acting in just the same light (but not in those words). as i said, judicial reviews are notoriously hard claims (because they are so huge in compensation) the threshold is higher than most other courts - so strike outs occur at the first stage hearing 8 times out of 10. that does not stop sisu from returning at all.

Hope they get the same judge then

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

"I am not persuaded that there is an arguable case that the loan by the council constituted an unlawful state aid.It was made on commercial terms, in order to protect the council's investment in ACL, in circumstances where ACL's bank was threatening to hold ACL in default."

THAT CAN NOW BE JUDICIALLY REVIEWED. ITS NOT STATE AID THATS BEEN INVESTED IS IT. ITS LOCAL PUBLIC FUNDS. ITS JUST ANOTHER MOVE OF THE GOAL POSTS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

skybluehugh · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
er, i dont have to explain myself, but i can explain the law to you. you can not simply appeal a judicial review! you can only appeal a decision of a judge being 'plainly wrong'. when a case is struck out, which this case is, you can simply put the claim back in, but with other evidence / terminology. by the way, judicial reviews are used also to appeal

Well lets bring it on. Anything that sheds more light on how our club has been screwed by your "saviours" and even better costs them more of their precious gold.

But in my view they will not appeal this, the cost will be to great. I think the pathetic statement put out today shows they were thrown by the Judges decision and how he squarely put all blame on them. What is their next course of action now the courts have been closed of to them.

duffer · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
er, i dont have to explain myself, but i can explain the law to you. you can not simply appeal a judicial review! you can only appeal a decision of a judge being 'plainly wrong'. when a case is struck out, which this case is, you can simply put the claim back in, but with other evidence / terminology. by the way, judicial reviews are used also to appeal

Come off it. You don't have to explain the law to me. This hasn't even made it to a full Judicial Review, it's fallen at the first hurdle where a judge has decided that there isn't even enough of a case to take forward to full court proceedings.

And it's not a claim. It's a JR. There are no damages here, just a request to the courts to determine whether a public body has made a proper decision.

It hasn't been struck out, in the way a claim at the civil courts can be struck out (and which indeed can be restarted in some circumstances). Judgement has been passed, you can read it.

But since you want to try to explain how this could happen in law, here's your challenge. Show me one, just one, case where a JR has been chucked out like this at the first step, and then been 'reworded' and succeded. If you know the law, like you claim, then you'll have something to hand. Or show me where a JR has been used to appeal another JR? I honestly don't think you know what you're saying.

The question really is, why do you feign expertise? You are entirely welcome to your opinion, but the stuff about knowing more about it than everyone else seems a bit sad to me. Sorry.

fernandopartridge · Aug 6, 2013

duffer said:
It's not a technicality. A technicality would be something like not submitting the correct papers in time.

The judge analysed the facts, and applied the law.

"I am not persuaded that there is an arguable case that the loan by the council constituted an unlawful state aid.

"It was made on commercial terms, in order to protect the council's investment in ACL, in circumstances where ACL's bank was threatening to hold ACL in default.

"The alternatives would appear to have been either the insolvency of ACL which (largely because the claimants had caused rent to be withheld as a means of exerting pressure in the commercial negotiations, which had led to an unsatisfied judgment of the High Court in ACL's favour) was not in a position to pay the loan, or acceptance of the claimants' proposals which the council did not consider to be in its commercial interests.

"It is clear from public statements made by members of the council, in particular councillor Mutton, that at least some members (of the council) have a strong animosity towards the claimants.

"However, I do not accept that this demonstrates that the council made its decision to offer a loan to ACL for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

"Its purpose was the legitimate commercial purpose of protecting investment in ACL.

"The claim that the decision was ultra vires (unlawful) is dependent on a showing of an improper purpose and therefore has no independent life once it is determined that the council's purpose was not improper."

No technicalities there. In fact in legal terms that seems a remarkably straightforward judgement. The council's purpose was proper, to protect it's investment, and was made at commercial terms. On that basis it would waste the court's time to take this case any further.

He has quite clearly said that this is not unlawful state aid.

Fair enough, in fairness I hadn't read the whole statement. It's a strange circumstance as CCC isn't a direct shareholder is it? They're 100% shareholder of a company that holds 50% of ACL?

duffer · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
the judge was right, sisu were distressing ccc, there is nothing wrong with that though. what would have been morally wrong would have been ACL selling to sisu due to said distress, however that would not have been ilegal. the reason the claim was struck out was because the claim was made regards the 14 million 'loan', sisu are saying that loan was improper becuase it stopped the distress they were causing acl, from leading to their taking over the Ricoh, but NOT in those words obviously. no, the claim would have been based on non proper use of tax monies to back up acl against sisu. so what the judge is saying : your complaining about their actions when in reality you were acting in just the same light (but not in those words). as i said, judicial reviews are notoriously hard claims (because they are so huge in compensation) the threshold is higher than most other courts - so strike outs occur at the first stage hearing 8 times out of 10. that does not stop sisu from returning at all.

There is no compensation at issue here. Just a judgement regarding whether the Council's actions were proper. Would you stop now with the bullshit.

westendunited · Aug 6, 2013

Just been reported on midlands today. Makes you want to vomit to hear Nick Owen refer to SISU as the sky blues. We are the sky blues.

procdoc · Aug 6, 2013

duffer said:
Come off it. You don't have to explain the law to me. This hasn't even made it to a full Judicial Review, it's fallen at the first hurdle where a judge has decided that there isn't even enough of a case to take forward to full court proceedings.

And it's not a claim. It's a JR. There are no damages here, just a request to the courts to determine whether a public body has made a proper decision.

It hasn't been struck out, in the way a claim at the civil courts can be struck out (and which indeed can be restarted in some circumstances). Judgement has been passed, you can read it.

But since you want to try to explain how this could happen in law, here's your challenge. Show me one, just one, case where a JR has been chucked out like this at the first step, and then been 'reworded' and succeded. If you know the law, like you claim, then you'll have something to hand. Or show me where a JR has been used to appeal another JR? I honestly don't think you know what you're saying.

The question really is, why do you feign expertise? You are entirely welcome to your opinion, but the stuff about knowing more about it than everyone else seems a bit sad to me. Sorry.

That's because he's a complete c**t

Snozz_is_god · Aug 6, 2013

duffer said:
Come off it. You don't have to explain the law to me. This hasn't even made it to a full Judicial Review, it's fallen at the first hurdle where a judge has decided that there isn't even enough of a case to take forward to full court proceedings.

And it's not a claim. It's a JR. There are no damages here, just a request to the courts to determine whether a public body has made a proper decision.

It hasn't been struck out, in the way a claim at the civil courts can be struck out (and which indeed can be restarted in some circumstances). Judgement has been passed, you can read it.

But since you want to try to explain how this could happen in law, here's your challenge. Show me one, just one, case where a JR has been chucked out like this at the first step, and then been 'reworded' and succeded. If you know the law, like you claim, then you'll have something to hand. Or show me where a JR has been used to appeal another JR? I honestly don't think you know what you're saying.

The question really is, why do you feign expertise? You are entirely welcome to your opinion, but the stuff about knowing more about it than everyone else seems a bit sad to me. Sorry.

well that told him

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

DUFFER, it was a directions hearing, a first hearing. a judicial review is a claim Duffer. judicial reviews pay higher damages than most civil courts Duffer. there are damages - of course there are - that is for the judge to decide upon and to whom they are made to. It has been struck out Duffer, the wording #without merit# is evidence of it being struck out. Duffer there is a judgement which simply an order.

to be clear to Duffer as you are obviously not educated in law, you do not jr a jr. you can though jr a decision by a judge. (which is actually what i said). if you would like to see a case where a JR was struck out and then it was restarted and the claimants won look on bailie and search judicial review judgements, you will find many. as i said almost all judicial reviews fall at the first hurdle. the same goes for many civil claims, queens bench applications, and high court appeals. its a way to sort out the wheat from the chaff..

i dont ever say i know more about law than anyone else Duffer.. show me where i say that. however i clearly know more than you lovey

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

duffer :

Judicial review may not be appropriate in every instance.
Claimants are strongly advised to seek appropriate legal advice when considering such proceedings and, in particular, before adopting this protocol or making a claim. Although the Legal Services Commission will not normally grant full representation before a letter before claim has been sent and the proposed defendant given a reasonable time to respond, initial funding may be available, for eligible claimants, to cover the work necessary to write this. (See Annex C for more information.)

do you see the word CLAIM ????

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

[h=1]Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review[/h]

Title	Number
INTRODUCTION
Annexes
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM	A
RESPONSE TO A LETTER BEFORE CLAIM	B
NOTES ON PUBLIC FUNDING FOR LEGAL COSTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW	C

Contents

[h=2]INTRODUCTION[/h]This protocol applies to proceedings within England and Wales only. It does not affect the time limit specified by Rule 54.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires that any claim form in an application for judicial review must be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose or the shorter time limits specified by Rules 54.5(5) and (6) which set out that a claim form for certain planning judicial reviews must be filed within 6 weeks and the claim form for certain procurement judicial reviews must be filed within 30 days.[SUP]1[/SUP]

[h=3]1[/h]Judicial review allows people with a sufficient interest in a decision or action by a public body to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of:

an enactment; or

a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.[SUP]2[/SUP]

[h=3]2[/h]Judicial review may be used where there is no right of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

Back to top
[h=3]Alternative Dispute Resolution[/h][h=4]3.1[/h]The parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution procedure would be more suitable than litigation, and if so, endeavour to agree which form to adopt. Both the Claimant and Defendant may be required by the Court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered. The Courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, and that claims should not be issued prematurely when a settlement is still actively being explored. Parties are warned that if the protocol is not followed (including this paragraph) then the Court must have regard to such conduct when determining costs. However, parties should also note that a claim for judicial review ‘must be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose’.

[h=4]3.2[/h]It is not practicable in this protocol to address in detail how the parties might decide which method to adopt to resolve their particular dispute. However, summarised below are some of the options for resolving disputes without litigation:

Discussion and negotiation.
Ombudsmen – the Parliamentary and Health Service and the Local Government Ombudsmen have discretion to deal with complaints relating to maladministration. The British and Irish Ombudsman Association provide information about Ombudsman schemes and other complaint handling bodies and this is available from their website at www.bioa.org.uk . Parties may wish to note that the Ombudsmen are not able to look into a complaint once court action has been commenced.
Early neutral evaluation by an independent third party (for example, a lawyer experienced in the field of administrative law or an individual experienced in the subject matter of the claim).
Mediation – a form of facilitated negotiation assisted by an independent neutral party.

[h=4]3.3[/h]The Legal Services Commission has published a booklet on ‘Alternatives to Court’, CLS Direct Information Leaflet 23 (www.clsdirect.org.uk), which lists a number of organisations that provide alternative dispute resolution services.

[h=4]3.4[/h]It is expressly recognised that no party can or should be forced to mediate or enter into any form of ADR.

Back to top
[h=3]4[/h]Judicial review may not be appropriate in every instance.
Claimants are strongly advised to seek appropriate legal advice when considering such proceedings and, in particular, before adopting this protocol or making a claim. Although the Legal Services Commission will not normally grant full representation before a letter before claim has been sent and the proposed defendant given a reasonable time to respond, initial funding may be available, for eligible claimants, to cover the work necessary to write this. (See Annex C for more information.)

[h=3]5[/h]This protocol sets out a code of good practice and contains the steps which parties should generally follow before making a claim for judicial review.

[h=3]6[/h]This protocol does not impose a greater obligation on a public body to disclose documents or give reasons for its decision than that already provided for in statute or common law. However, where the court considers that a public body should have provided relevantdocuments and/or information, particularly where this failure is a breach of a statutory or common law requirement, it may impose sanctions.

This protocol will not be appropriate where the defendant does not have the legal power to change the decision being challenged, for example decisions issued by tribunals such as the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
This protocol will not be appropriate in urgent cases, for example, when directions have been set, or are in force, for the claimant's removal from the UK, or where there is an urgent need for an interim order to compel a public body to act where it has unlawfully refused to do so (for example, the failure of a local housing authority to secure interim accommodation for a homeless claimant) a claim should be made immediately. A letter before claim will not stop the implementation of a disputed decision in all instances.
This protocol may not be appropriate in cases where one of the shorter time limits in Rules 54.5(5) or (6) applies. In those cases, the parties should still attempt to comply with this protocol but the court will not apply normal cost sanctions where the court is satisfied that it has not been possible to comply because of the shorter time limits.

[h=3]7[/h]All claimants will need to satisfy themselves whether they should follow the protocol, depending upon the circumstances of his or her case. Where the use of the protocol is appropriate, the court will normally expect all parties to have complied with it and will take into account compliance or non-compliance when giving directions for case management of proceedings or when making orders for costs.[SUP]3[/SUP] However, even in emergency cases, it is good practice to fax to the defendant the draft Claim Form which the claimant intends to issue. A claimant is also normally required to notify a defendant when an interim mandatory order is being sought.

Back to top

procdoc · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
DUFFER, it was a directions hearing, a first hearing. a judicial review is a claim Duffer. judicial reviews pay higher damages than most civil courts Duffer. there are damages - of course there are - that is for the judge to decide upon and to whom they are made to. It has been struck out Duffer, the wording #without merit# is evidence of it being struck out. Duffer there is a judgement which simply an order.

to be clear to Duffer as you are obviously not educated in law, you do not jr a jr. you can though jr a decision by a judge. (which is actually what i said). if you would like to see a case where a JR was struck out and then it was restarted and the claimants won look on bailie and search judicial review judgements, you will find many. as i said almost all judicial reviews fall at the first hurdle. the same goes for many civil claims, queens bench applications, and high court appeals. its a way to sort out the wheat from the chaff..

i dont ever say i know more about law than anyone else Duffer.. show me where i say that. however i clearly know more than you lovey

I've never claimed to be a legal expert, I also don't fully grasp the complicated goings on in this saga. But there is one thing I can say with one hundred percent certainty, you are full of shit and you are a c**t

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

[h=3]The letter before claim[/h][h=4]8[/h]Before making a claim, the claimant should send a letter to the defendant. The purpose of this letter is to identify the issues in dispute and establish whether litigation can be avoided.

[h=4]9[/h]Claimants should normally use the suggested standard format for the letter outlined at Annex A.

[h=4]10[/h]The letter should contain the date and details of the decision, act or omission being challenged and a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based. It should also contain the details of any relevant information that the claimant is seeking and an explanation of why this is considered relevant. If the claim is considered to be an Aarhus Convention claim, the letter should state this clearly and explain the reasons, since specific rules as to costs apply to such claims.

[h=4]11[/h]The letter should normally contain the details of any interested parties[SUP]4[/SUP] known to the claimant. They should be sent a copy of the letter before claim for information. Claimants are strongly advised to seek appropriate legal advice when considering such proceedings and, in particular, before sending the letter before claim to other interested parties or making a claim.

[h=4]12[/h]A claim should not normally be made until the proposed reply date given in the letter before claim has passed, unless the circumstances of the case require more immediate action to be taken.

Back to top
[h=3]The letter of response[/h][h=4]13[/h]Defendants should normally respond within 14 days using the standard format at Annex B. Failure to do so will be taken into account by the court and sanctions may be imposed unless there are good reasons.[SUP]5[/SUP]

[h=4]14[/h]Where it is not possible to reply within the proposed time limit the defendant should send an interim reply and propose a reasonable extension. Where an extension is sought, reasons should be given and, where required, additional information requested. This will not affect the time limit for making a claim for judicial review [SUP]6[/SUP]nor will it bind the claimant where he or she considers this to be unreasonable. However, where the court considers that a subsequent claim is made prematurely it may impose sanctions.

[h=4]15[/h]If the claim is being conceded in full, the reply should say so in clear and unambiguous terms.

[h=4]16[/h]If the claim is being conceded in part or not being conceded at all, the reply should say so in clear and unambiguous terms, and:
(a) where appropriate, contain a new decision, clearly identifying what aspects of the claim are being conceded and what are not, or, give a clear timescale within which the new decision will be issued;

(b) provide a fuller explanation for the decision, if considered appropriate to do so;

(c) address any points of dispute, or explain why they cannot be addressed;

(d) enclose any relevant documentation requested by the claimant, or explain why the documents are not being enclosed; and

(e) where appropriate, confirm whether or not they will oppose any application for an interim remedy.

If the letter before claim has stated that the claim is an Aarhus Convention claim but the defendant does not accept this, the reply should state this clearly and explain the reasons.

[h=4]17[/h]The response should be sent to all interested parties[SUP]7[/SUP] identified by the claimant and contain details of any other parties who the defendant considers also have an interest.

Back to top

James Smith · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
[h=1]Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review[/h] <snipped>

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

[h=1]Judicial review[/h][h=2]Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.[/h]

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.
It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were 'right', as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the 'correct' decision.
This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.
If you want to argue that a decision was incorrect, judicial review may not be best for you. There are alternative remedies, such as appealing against the decision to a higher court.
Examples of the types of decision which may fall within the range of judicial review include:

Decisions of local authorities in the exercise of their duties to provide various welfare benefits and special education for children in need of such education;
Certain decisions of the immigration authorities and Immigration Appellate Authority;
Decisions of regulatory bodies;
Decisions relating to prisoner's rights.

procdoc · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
[h=1]Judicial review[/h][h=2]Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.[/h]

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.
It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were 'right', as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the 'correct' decision.
This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.
If you want to argue that a decision was incorrect, judicial review may not be best for you. There are alternative remedies, such as appealing against the decision to a higher court.
Examples of the types of decision which may fall within the range of judicial review include:

Decisions of local authorities in the exercise of their duties to provide various welfare benefits and special education for children in need of such education;

Certain decisions of the immigration authorities and Immigration Appellate Authority;

Decisions of regulatory bodies;

Decisions relating to prisoner's rights.

the fact that you just copy and paste your information also makes you a c**t without a mind of your own. c**t.

Snozz_is_god · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
"I am not persuaded that there is an arguable case that the loan by the council constituted an unlawful state aid.It was made on commercial terms, in order to protect the council's investment in ACL, in circumstances where ACL's bank was threatening to hold ACL in default."

THAT CAN NOW BE JUDICIALLY REVIEWED. ITS NOT STATE AID THATS BEEN INVESTED IS IT. ITS LOCAL PUBLIC FUNDS. ITS JUST ANOTHER MOVE OF THE GOAL POSTS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

Stop shouting, the £14m is NOT public money, it's been borrowed at preferential rates and loaned to ACL. ACL are paying back the loan nack along with the interest, not a penney of it will come from public funds.

It simple to understand, say you wanted to buy an orange and I said here's 40p to do it, but you'll owe me 45p to cover interest and I borrowed that money of my mate who changed me 45p, eventually you gave me back the 40p + the 5p interest and I paid my mate back the 45p. How much money did I loose? and how much money came out of my pocket, answer none in both cases. So stop spreading this public funds nonsense.

Breaking News - Judge kicks out SISU's judicial review against CCC / ACL (4 Viewers)

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

true sky blue

Guest

true sky blue

Guest

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency