Breaking News - Judge kicks out SISU's judicial review against CCC / ACL (3 Viewers)

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

[h=3]Judicial review appeals[/h][h=4]52.15[/h](1) Where permission to apply for judicial review has been refused at a hearing in the High Court, the person seeking that permission may apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.

(1A) Where permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal has been refused by the High Court or where permission to apply for judicial review has been refused and recorded as totally without merit in accordance with rule 23.12 –

(a) the applicant may apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal;

(b) the application will be determined on paper without an oral hearing.

(2) An application in accordance with paragraphs (1) or (1A) must be made within 7 days of the decision of the High Court to refuse to give permission to apply for judicial review.

(3) On an application under paragraph (1), the Court of Appeal may, instead of giving permission to appeal, give permission to apply for judicial review.

(4) Where the Court of Appeal gives permission to apply for judicial review in accordance with paragraph (3), the case will proceed in the High Court unless the Court of Appeal orders otherwise.

James Smith · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
[h=3]The letter before claim[/h][h=4][/h]

And this one. :facepalm:

covhead1 · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
Judicial review

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.

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.

:jerkit:

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2000/issue5/cornford5.html

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/...ommunication/Att.1_CPRPrt54JudicialReview.pdf

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

haha im a prick now because i copy paste material to prove a point. what a prick you are

Nonleagueherewecome · Aug 6, 2013

Ladies and gentleman, I give you: someone worse than PSGM1. At least he made the odd good point, if more by chance than design.

true sky blue · Aug 6, 2013

James Smith said:
And this one. :facepalm:

your missing the point, old clever c**t Duffer reckons JRs are not claims!!! read the fucking document again twat face

mattylad · Aug 6, 2013

never has a dead horse been so soundly flogged ha ha ha....tsb=fail

Nonleagueherewecome · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
take that cock out of your mouth for a minute and maybe we will understand what your saying

Hurry up and ban him, mods, I don't want to have to read this as well as the pm's he's sending me.

James Smith · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
haha im a prick now because i copy paste material to prove a point. what a prick you are

Not in my book, you're a copyright infringer - I do hope you're not working for my solicitors, not London based are you?

Snozz_is_god · Aug 6, 2013

mattylad said:
never has a dead horse been so soundly flogged ha ha ha....tsb=fail

You can see by his last 2 messages, he's been roundly beaten.

valiant15 · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
take that cock out of your mouth for a minute and maybe we will understand what your saying

Fuck off freak. Go and throw yourself off a cliff with tim and septic.

skybluericoh · Aug 6, 2013

jesus-wept said:
I could never see the grounds for the case. I am no legal eagle by any means but the £14million is a loan at a cheaper rate than the Yorkshire Loan, so it is a win win situation ACL save money and in time ccc earn money and this is allowed by central Government.
If sisu do appeal it will be interesting on what grounds.

On the grounds that they are vindictive heartless, money grabbing gits?

Nonleagueherewecome · Aug 6, 2013

Snozz_is_god said:
You can see by his last 2 messages, he's been roundly beaten.

I wish he had...literally, of course.

James Smith · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
your missing the point, old clever **** Duffer reckons JRs are not claims!!! read the fucking document again twat face

No I'm not missing the point (and there really is no need for repeated language like that), the stuff you posted is Crown Copyright that's the point!

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 6, 2013

Frankly this board is getting unreadable.

James Smith · Aug 6, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
I wish he had...literally, of course.

Surely you can't be condoning physical violence, that's not nice and a criminal offence to boot.
Now ritual humiliation like having to go to an empty stadium every other week because of your stupid actions as chief executive of a football club that I can condone.

Sisued · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
haha im a prick now because i copy paste material to prove a point. what a prick you are

No that's not the reason you're a prick

duffer · 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

Again, I'm afraid you're wrong. You may or may not know more about the law than me, but on this you're dead wrong. You're talking about a claim here in a financial sense, and it's pretty easy to find out that Judicial Reviews of this type rarely if ever give rise to damages. I would have thought someone who claimed to know about Judicial Reviews would know this.

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/downloads/GuideToJRProc.pdf

"Damages.

Before the Human Rights Act came into force, damages were rarely awarded in judicial
review and were not available to compensate people who had unlawful decisions made against

them. Damages may now be awarded where a public body has unlawfully interfered with your

human rights."

This case clearly does not relate to human rights. Again, I'm happy to be corrected, but i bet you can't find a single JR case like this where damages have been paid.

As for struck out - again I believe this is what happens before a case is judged. Examples here:
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-le...-court/striking-out-a-claim-or-a-defence.html

This case hase been judged, not struck out. The judge has read the case files, and applied his understanding of the law. So not struck out, not a technicality, a judgement. SISU can appeal, but that's it.

And once again, you're claiming that there are many cases that back your odd interpretation of the law up - but you can't actually find one yourself. Lovey.

Jack Griffin · 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

Frankly it doesn't matter what nonsense you spout, it will not change the facts. SISU have struck out.

duffer · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
your missing the point, old clever c**t Duffer reckons JRs are not claims!!! read the fucking document again twat face

They aren't claims in the way that you've been talking about claims, for financial damages. They are court cases relating to whether a public body has made a proper judgement. And I don't much care for being called that, thanks.

skybluehugh · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
haha im a prick now because i copy paste material to prove a point. what a prick you are

A prick may be a bit strong especially as you called Duffer "Lovey" which would make me think you are a woman, so please Joy go and do one

robbieray · Aug 6, 2013

Or Gay lol

Samo · Aug 6, 2013

true sky blue said:
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

I don't think I will you twat.

Nonleagueherewecome · Aug 6, 2013

James Smith said:
Surely you can't be condoning physical violence, that's not nice and a criminal offence to boot.
Now ritual humiliation like having to go to an empty stadium every other week because of your stupid actions as chief executive of a football club that I can condone.

He sent me a PM calling me insulting names-yeah, I hope the fucker gets jumped by a bunch of SISU haters and battered to within an inch of his life!

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 6, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
He sent me a PM calling me insulting names

Not sure you're fully a member of this board until somebody does that?

Breaking News - Judge kicks out SISU's judicial review against CCC / ACL (3 Viewers)

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

true sky blue

Guest

Well-Known Member

true sky blue

Guest

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency