Arden Chambers have announced (in one of their eflashes. No link yet) that the Supreme Court has given further reasons for the refusal of permission in the Weaver case. The full reasons, which are stated to replace those previously issued are:
Permission to appeal BE REFUSED. The point is clearly one for the Supreme Court but this is not a suitable case on its facts. If a suitable case can be identified consideration should be given to applying for a leap-frog appeal to the Supreme Court.
So – there we are. Permission refused on the basis that it was an academic case. However, surely this just invites a race to the High Court? On your marks…
It is a shame that so far the Sc ‘s website does not include refusals of permission and reasons .
Now, that makes a lot more sense than than the Order that was sent out. Frankly, the mind boggled at the idea that this was not a suitable issue for the Supreme Court.
With hindsight, this was indicated in the Supreme Court’s judgment on the public funding/protected costs issue in Weaver.
— On Wed, 11/25/09, Enquiries(Supreme Court) wrote:
From: Enquiries(Supreme Court)
Subject: RE: APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE
To: “sender”
Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 3:27 PM
Dear ,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Unfortunately this service [records of applications for leave to appeal , their current status,their disposition and any judgements on refusal ] is not available at present on our website, however it is something that we are looking into for development in the future.
I will pass on your comments to the website editor and he consider them at the next review.
Kind Regards,
Yasmin Rahman
Customer Service and Education Assistant
t 0207 960 1900/1500
e yasmin.rahman@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square
London SW1P 3BD
is that the sound of more rsl’s rifling coffers that should be put to other uses to fund shitey legal action? let’s kill yl soon please and accept that you can’t privatise housing by stealth. it’s all part of the theory that you can take an old-fashioned institutionally incompetent organisation and by the magic incantation ‘we are a commercial entity’ it will become efficient. add the magic oofle dust of ‘we are serving all our customers’ and it is both a caring provider of social housing and a thrusting commercial body that manages and repairs (ahem) its stock with quiet professionalism.
hoorah for the pushmepullyou of the new shiny rsl!
sorry this is a) a rant and b) not directly about the law; however the serious point i would make is that all the laws in the world will not transform a sloth into a tiger.
Well, many Registered Providers would say that they’re part of the charity sector, rather than part of the (quasi)governmental sector and hence rather object to being treated as public authorities. Whether you agree or not is another matter ;-)
they are part of whatever sector suits them at the time. to torture my imagery further, a cross between a pushmepullyou and a chameleon.
and of course, it’s not a question of what kind of animal they are or how loudly they can object, but of the nature of the function they are performing.
as someone who, from a landlord’s perspective, has been happily ticking the `no’ box on the claim form in answer to the q “does, or will, the claim include any issues under the human rights act 1998?”, when going for possession, i wonder what we’re supposed to do now! fess up that it does (or might) or plough on as before…hmmnnn.
Heh. Welcome to the brave new world..
I presume you mean on summary or mandatory claims, as anything where reasonableness features and you are probably OK without a tick.
On mandatory, I suppose if I was landlord-side I would want to take a view on what happened to Ms Weaver’s first instance claim. And, of course of the whole Doherty/McCann aftermath.
But that is not to say that there aren’t other possible HR challenges brewing (watch this space).