<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: HLPA almost live.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/halpa-almost-live/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/halpa-almost-live/</link>
	<description>The Joy of Housing Law</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:13:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nearly Legal</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/halpa-almost-live/#comment-5375</link>
		<dc:creator>Nearly Legal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/halpa-almost-live/#comment-5375</guid>
		<description>J

In questions, Desmond Rutledge did make the point that by the very nature of the client's situation, welfare and benefit cases are particularly hard to actually bring to the higher courts, but I agree on the worrying vision.

Floyd has a whole new post, partly in response, directly after/above this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>J</p>
<p>In questions, Desmond Rutledge did make the point that by the very nature of the client&#8217;s situation, welfare and benefit cases are particularly hard to actually bring to the higher courts, but I agree on the worrying vision.</p>
<p>Floyd has a whole new post, partly in response, directly after/above this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J</title>
		<link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/halpa-almost-live/#comment-5371</link>
		<dc:creator>J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:26:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/halpa-almost-live/#comment-5371</guid>
		<description>Yes, I thought the talks were very good, particularly the second one on recent cases. I don't do much HB work but do find the whole area to be particularly interesting. 

One point did rather sadden me though. It was striking that there were so few "recent cases" from the High Court and Court of Appeal. Almost everything was at the Tribunal or Commissioner level. I know that HB cases have an internal appeal structure designed to keep these cases out of the higher courts, but I just had a worrying vision of the furture, where all our cases are decided by Tribunals,  with no real oversight from the High Court or Court of Appeal. I find it hard to believe, for example, that the High Court (or Court of Appeal) would have come to the same conclusion as various of the Commissioners have. I'm thinking, in particular, of the case that Desmond cited on the issue of what constituted effective work. 

I'm afraid I had to leave before the end. What was said about Floyd?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I thought the talks were very good, particularly the second one on recent cases. I don&#8217;t do much HB work but do find the whole area to be particularly interesting. </p>
<p>One point did rather sadden me though. It was striking that there were so few &#8220;recent cases&#8221; from the High Court and Court of Appeal. Almost everything was at the Tribunal or Commissioner level. I know that HB cases have an internal appeal structure designed to keep these cases out of the higher courts, but I just had a worrying vision of the furture, where all our cases are decided by Tribunals,  with no real oversight from the High Court or Court of Appeal. I find it hard to believe, for example, that the High Court (or Court of Appeal) would have come to the same conclusion as various of the Commissioners have. I&#8217;m thinking, in particular, of the case that Desmond cited on the issue of what constituted effective work. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m afraid I had to leave before the end. What was said about Floyd?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
