The end of the road

The Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal in Birmingham City Council v Qasim et al (our notes on the Court of Appeal and county court decisions are here and here, respectively).

As our friends at the UKSC blog previously noted, it would be helpful if the Supreme Court would publish such information itself so that everyone would know of such decisions, rather than waiting for the information to trickle out.

About J

J is a barrister in London. He loves service charges and all things leasehold law related. He also likes beating rogue landlords and mortgage companies.
Posted in Housing law - All.

3 Comments

  1. On behalf of the HLPA, I raised the issue of the availability of information about permission to appeal applications at the first meeting of the Supreme Court Users Group (22 January 2010). The staff made it clear that it had always been intended that the UKSC website would carry information about the making of, and progress of, permission applications. That material had only been delayed from making its appearance on the website by internal IT problems which were being adddressed. It was hoped that the position would be improved shortly.
    If HLPA members wish to raise any other matters relating to the operation of the UKSC could they please notify me directly. Many thanks.

  2. Having made my first visit to the SC webpage since October, I am perplexed to find that it is still so spartan and amateurish. There is no way to subscribe to email alerts for judgments, as there used to be for the Appellate Committee. Nor does there appear to be a single RSS feed (not even for published judgments).

    It is frankly unbelievable nowadays that somethings as simple as a list of decided applications for leave is being published as a pdf, rather than simply directly on the website in html.

    The Court appears to be trying to ensure that its site is as clunky, as hard to use and access, and as out of date as the ECtHR’s various sites, but without the huge range of resources that the ECt provides. This is deeply disappointing for a Court that has repeatedly trumpeted how very technologically advanced it is.

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.