<?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"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Weaver: Permission Refused</title> <atom:link href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/weaver-permission-refused/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/weaver-permission-refused/</link> <description>Housing law news and comment</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:56:35 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator> <item><title>By: Housing Cases &#8211; Permission Refused &#171; UKSC blog</title><link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/weaver-permission-refused/#comment-3857</link> <dc:creator>Housing Cases &#8211; Permission Refused &#171; UKSC blog</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2010 11:32:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3618#comment-3857</guid> <description>[...] Lord Hope, Lady Hale and Lord Brown on 5 November 2009, as noted by Arden Chambers and picked up by Nearly Legal.  The reason for the refusal was the conventional “the application did not raise an arguable [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Lord Hope, Lady Hale and Lord Brown on 5 November 2009, as noted by Arden Chambers and picked up by Nearly Legal.  The reason for the refusal was the conventional “the application did not raise an arguable [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: S</title><link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/weaver-permission-refused/#comment-256</link> <dc:creator>S</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:21:10 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3618#comment-256</guid> <description>Yeah, but they don&#039;t like doing it.
I agree though.  It wouldn&#039;t be the first time they&#039;ve done it and I think this is a case where it was more than justified to do so.
As the decision of the CA is strictly obiter, I doubt it will be long before another case gets taken all the way.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, but they don&#8217;t like doing it.</p><p>I agree though.  It wouldn&#8217;t be the first time they&#8217;ve done it and I think this is a case where it was more than justified to do so.</p><p>As the decision of the CA is strictly obiter, I doubt it will be long before another case gets taken all the way.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: NL</title><link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/weaver-permission-refused/#comment-255</link> <dc:creator>NL</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:33:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3618#comment-255</guid> <description>But while it was academic for Ms Weaver, how could it be said to be generally academic? Broader public interest, surely, and there is sufficient precedent for the HoL giving permission in that regard...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But while it was academic for Ms Weaver, how could it be said to be generally academic? Broader public interest, surely, and there is sufficient precedent for the HoL giving permission in that regard&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: S</title><link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/weaver-permission-refused/#comment-254</link> <dc:creator>S</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:21:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3618#comment-254</guid> <description>Surely its because the appeal itself was wholly academic?
That can be the only reason.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely its because the appeal itself was wholly academic?</p><p>That can be the only reason.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: NL</title><link>http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/11/weaver-permission-refused/#comment-253</link> <dc:creator>NL</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:51:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3618#comment-253</guid> <description>I confess myself to be surprised. Not necessarily at the de facto outcome, but at the refusal of permission. Love to see reasons.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I confess myself to be surprised. Not necessarily at the de facto outcome, but at the refusal of permission. Love to see reasons.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
