Judicial Review

gas

gas

ACCOUNT DELETED
Forum Moderator
Jan 27, 2011
19,124
6,770
113
Coocaddens Underpass
Starting today Mr Justice Hickinbottom is considering whether Bristol City Council looked at the effect of the new supermarket on other retailers' properly.

For clarity A Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, the review is a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

The court will not substitute what it thinks is the "correct" decision.

This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again as long as it does so in a lawful way.


The way I read things at present there are three possibilities;

In simplistic terms;

1. The Judgement could uphold that all planning decisions and procedures were followed correctly and lawfully therefore Trash Horfields case would be dismissed. If he refuses "leave to appeal" then TRASHorfield will have lost and the club will have won the day and would be able to go ahead with their new stadium.

2. There could be failure to reach a judgement (it's over 2 days) and a decision will be made next month as to weather BCC acted lawfully.


3. If he decides that TRASHorfield does have a case to answer, then he can give "leave to appeal" which means he would be giving the go-ahead for a full hearing at a later date.

Best case scenario is obviously the first one but even if Trash win and get a full hearing all that will happen is BCC will have to resit/re-approve the original decision to the Judges recommendation.

Fingers Crossed
 
Latest;

The summations were concluded in a single day and the judge aims to give his judgement in court next Thursday at 2pm.
 
A short hearing implies an open and shut judgement, but even if those bollocks arguments are somehow all held up, the plan can just be resubmitted with all those things quickly fixed. What a waste of money.
 
Qwerty said:
A short hearing implies an open and shut judgement, but even if those bollocks arguments are somehow all held up, the plan can just be resubmitted with all those things quickly fixed. What a waste of money.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, two days were set aside for the JR but it's over in one! This IMO is a positive sign that the Judge has already made his mind up and will dismiss Trash Horfields objections.

Hope so anyway.
 
gas. said:
The way I read things at present there are three possibilities;

In simplistic terms;

1. The Judgement could uphold that all planning decisions and procedures were followed correctly and lawfully therefore Trash Horfields case would be dismissed. If he refuses "leave to appeal" then TRASHorfield will have lost and the club will have won the day and would be able to go ahead with their new stadium.

2. There could be failure to reach a judgement (it's over 2 days) and a decision will be made next month as to weather BCC acted lawfully.


3. If he decides that TRASHorfield does have a case to answer, then he can give "leave to appeal" which means he would be giving the go-ahead for a full hearing at a later date.
Click to expand...

yep. trash felt they had 3 reasons to challenge how the decision was made.
the 1st reason was chucked out straight away by the judge. that was about the sporting facilities would be lost from the area. what a load of ****e that was! bristol rugby is going anyway regardless if we were going or not and our stadium is only a few miles away. judge was right to dismiss that. the judge felt the other 2 reasons should go to the JR. however both things have been amended before the JR which was good forward thinking by the council.
the 2nd reason was about a report that was done on what the retail impact would be on gloucester road. the council employed a consultant to do the report. the consultant who stated there would be an impact but the council believed the impact would be on other supermarkets in and around the area and not on gloucester road. trash claims the council misrepresented the report. however the council in advance has got the author of the report to sign a statement that the council did not misrepresent his report. well done to the council in getting that statement sorted before the JR.
the 3rd reason is that sainsburys have agreed to help the area by paying money out for potential retail impacts but have not specified where that money will be used so trash believes that info should be specified. the council has already sorted that out too back in jan.

so all 3 points that trash have has been dealt with and i honestly believe out of your 3 possibilities that number 1 will happen. trash has no case and there will be no right of appeal.
 
Qwerty said:
What a waste of money.
Click to expand...

its already cost our club nearly £1.2 million with the delays due to this. this JR will cost the tax payer up to around £100k according to the local press. trash has made a ltd company will liquidate the company if they lose so they wont have to pay anything!
 
They've raised £20k, that's not making much of a dent. But I guess after the judgement, that really will be it. Hopefully it hasn't delayed it another season...which I'm sure they will consider a victory.
 
Great news, in fact the best news regarding Rovers I can remember for a long time or maybe ever!

Things are looking up.

I mean what could possibly go wrong? :emoticon-0141-whew:
 
great news! today has been filled with great news for me.

my internet is back!! my router died so had to wait to get a new one. was told 5 working days so early next week but arrived today! i have already used up my data limit on my mobile so cant even use my phone. then i come on to the internet and see this great news!!

in yoru face radice and trash. i hope no one votes for these people!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back