@stamfordman and yet unless and until this is overturned by the Court of Appeal, that is the law of the land, whether you like it or not.
I'm not aware of Lambeth having made an application to the Court of Appeal.
@stamfordman and yet unless and until this is overturned by the Court of Appeal, that is the law of the land, whether you like it or not.
I'm not aware of Lambeth having made an application to the Court of Appeal.
The judge refused permission to appeal - does that mean they can't?
And you know judges sometimes make bad decisions. This is one.
And - what exactly is the law of the land here?
An inappropriately targetted consultation would seem to be equally problematic. In practice, failure to consider and failure to consult are 2 sides of the same coin.
I’ve had a look on the appeals tracker on Westlaw and it doesn’t seem like Lambeth have applied to the CoA for permission to appeal. If they haven’t then it’s difficult to see how Lambeth will “see this off” as asserted.
I’ve had a look on the appeals tracker on Westlaw and it doesn’t seem like Lambeth have applied to the CoA for permission to appeal. If they haven’t then it’s difficult to see how Lambeth will “see this off” as asserted.
What does this mean in the relief/consequential matters order:
1) The Defendant applies for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The
Claimant resists the application, partly on procedural grounds and partly on its
merits.
[snip]
13) For these reasons the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal is
refused.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z0NktxPq-J41OXU1EwEt69Br6ioGPOB2/view
C requested permission from both the High Court (the court against whose decision it sought to appeal) and the Court of Appeal (the court to which it wished to appeal). The High Court (the court who made the judgment you are citing) refused permission - which leaves the application to the Court of Appeal. Or not.
You can apply for permission to appeal from (a) the court you’re in, or (b) the court you want to appeal to. It seems they applied for permission in the High Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal but were denied. They can try again in the Court of Appeal, within a certain time period, but I can’t see any application listed.
Apparently, for civil cases at least, the putative appellant is supposed to make both applications at the same time - which makes about as much sense as the Wookie defence.
And - what exactly is the law of the land here?
What the judge said it is. Just as it's the law of the land that CCTV can be used to enforce red route bays, we have to deal with the law as it is, rather than the law as we would like it to be.