A question about Falmer for the ones in the Know

[sparkie]

...
The icing on the cake is that whatever the final outcome from the courts, the matter goes back to the government (if it goes to the HoL Ruth Kelly will no doubt have been replaced by then) so a new decision can be issued and that decision is potentially open to challenge.
...

I assume it has to be challenged on new grounds rather than just the same points as before? Otherwise surely a new challenge gets thrown out on day1 as it's already been legally tested?

 

[The Large One]

Shit, I wrote all that stuff, made up some new words, and someone else had put it far more succinctly.

Bugger.

 

[Dave the OAP]

quashing?

quoshing?

 

[tedebear]

squashing

 

[Yoda]

If this is so, looking on the conservative side of things, does anyone think that the stadium will be built before the Olympics?

I sometimes wonder that.

 

[The Large One]

quashing?

quoshing?

 

[Scoffers]

My "old man" emerged on the same day I did, thank God.

Oh, I see - you meant your dad.... Sorry.

Doh

 

[110%]

I assume it has to be challenged on new grounds rather than just the same points as before? Otherwise surely a new challenge gets thrown out on day1 as it's already been legally tested?

Yeah. You have got to assume that any new decision the government comes up with will have addressed all the points that the Court made. In which case, any subsequent challenge is generally going to be limited to the new stuff. (There could possibly be grounds for challenge if the new decision relied on something which wasn't challenged first time round but in the meantime has become out of date and so the new decision is 'unreasonable' but I don't think we have to worry about that.)

 

[Screaming J]

OK, I'll give it a go...


If so, where to? Don't know. I assume it goes to the House of Lords next. It will be bloody expensive and even more doomed to failure than this challenge. If they are considered to have 'lost' this particular challenge, the Albion, the City Council AND the government have already expressed their intent on re-claiming the costs incurred. Figures vary as to what this will be. Lewes claim no more than £65,000, others say it could go north of £250,000.

No, the route on from the High Court would first be to the Court of Appeal, but your point about costs applies equally there.

I think there is nothing to stop Lewes going to the Appeal Court if they lose (or are otherwise unsatisfied with the decision). If they also then lose in the Appeal Court they can seek further leave from the judges in that court to appeal to the House of Lords - which may or may not be granted.

Any similarity between the Falmer decision and Charles Dickens' fictional Jarndyce v Jarndyce case in Great Expectations is, of course, purely coincidental.....not!
.