Wednesday's Court Hearing

[The Large One]

Good Beer Guide?

Oh yeah.

 

[desprateseagull]

all those bored tv camera crews... begging for a banner or three?

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

Temple is by far the nearest.

And being based in London, Dave will of course know that if he takes the Northern Line to Bank, he can walk straight through to Monument, and then the District and Circle to Temple (I don't know if they have repaired the escalator link between Bank and Monument, as I've not been there for a while). Would join you all but I am moving jobs after that day and will be nose to the grindstone from start to finish.

 

[Napper]

whats the outcome we want from this and what will it mean if we get it ?

 

[bhaexpress]

Hmm, think I may put in an appearance too.

 

[The Large One]

whats the outcome we want from this and what will it mean if we get it ?

http://www.seagulls.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/StadiumDetail/0,,10433~899343,00.html

In a nutshell, the Albion and the Treasury Solicitor are happy for Ruth Kelly to consider all of Lewes' 16 points of objection to John Prescott's original letter of planning approval, even though both feel that 15 of the 16 points have no merit and no basis in law.

Because the government has conceded on ONE point on a technicality (Lewes insist on referring to the entire document as 'fatally flawed' - it isn't), it must go back to Ruth Kelly - whatever happens.

Because all sides agree that Ruth Kelly should consider all 16 points, there ought to be no need for a Court Hearing in December. Lewes on the other hand insist there is a need, because, er, um, they do. In other words, this is the most blatant attempt at stringing out the entire process.

The outcome we are looking for is that the Case Court agrees that there is no need for a full Court Hearing, and the matter gets referred back to Ruth Kelly IMMEDIATELY. That is what Martin Perry is referring to in his email to me.

If the court disagrees and turns down the Albion's application, we have the full Court hearing on December 4/5. If it comes to this, and Lewes are perceived to have 'lost' their challenges, the Albion, the Treasury Solicitor and the City Council will all be seeking to reclaim their money back from Lewes District Council - somewhere in the region of £200,000 - £250,000. Lewes claim they are only liable for the Treasury Solicitor's costs (possibly over £100,000 and still FAR in excess of their puny estimate of £65,000), but this is bollocks - they ARE liable for the Albion's costs. This is a major cock-up on their part which they point blank refuse to acknowledge.

Whatever, it will DEFINITELY be going back to Ruth Kelly. Hopefully, on this coming Thursday.

 

[Curious Orange]

CO, I am just curious to know what the Lewes barristers' points of reasoning are...

They are hardly likely to admit to a blatant attempt at time-wasting in front of the judge!!

 

[Goring Gull]

I emailed him at the club. Let's hope you don't need to book that time off.

FWIW, my partner, who runs her own school, emailed him a few days ago in his capacity as a governor/board member at City College in Pelham Street, and has yet to receive a reply. That's not a dig, it's more a case, I suspect, that he is very pre-occupied with Wednesday's hearing at present.

Good to hear he is proccupied with Wednesdays case i'd be a bit concerned if he wasn't.

 

[BensGrandad]

TLO it must get boring keep getting asked what mayappear to be simple questions but assuming everything goes well on Wednesday and it is referred back to Ruth Kelly when could we expect the final, and I assume it would be the final, granting or refusing of permission.

 

[Curious Orange]

TLO it must get boring keep getting asked what mayappear to be simple questions but assuming everything goes well on Wednesday and it is referred back to Ruth Kelly when could we expect the final, and I assume it would be the final, granting or refusing of permission.

In 2097 - on the exact anniversary of the day the bulldozers moved in to the Goldstone.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I don't think there is a set deadline, but the norm is about 6 months. So we would be looking at the start of March if there is no need to return to the high court in December.

Indeed some cases can take longer, but highly unlikely in this case.

 

[BensGrandad]

I don't think there is a set deadline, but the norm is about 6 months. So we would be looking at the start of March if there is no need to return to the high court in December.

Indeed some cases can take longer, but highly unlikely in this case.

Thanks for that.


Will this be the final answer or could LDC do exactly the same again and argue that it is referred back over some minor point and then continue to do this for ever.

 

[dcseagull]

Thanks for that.


Will this be the final answer or could LDC do exactly the same again and argue that it is referred back over some minor point and then continue to do this for ever.

LDC could refer the new decision to the High Court again. However, there are council elections coming up next May.......

 

[The Large One]

Thanks for that.


Will this be the final answer or could LDC do exactly the same again and argue that it is referred back over some minor point and then continue to do this for ever.

In answer to your earlier question, I don't know. All I would say is that it saves us two months from what it could have been.

With this new Ruth Kelly decision, it would be assumed that she had taken all of the points into consideration, even if she says 'I don't agree with Lewes District Council. Therefore, I would assume Lewes' points, having been raised, dealt with (and probably considered null & void or irrelevant), their position would be diminished to the point of defeat once and for all.

I would also assume that they would not be able to raise any new points (points that they delibarately held back from this round of nonsense).

 

[BensGrandad]

LDC could refer the new decision to the High Court again. However, there are council elections coming up next May.......

The impression that they give is that they believe that elections mean nothing as they are safe and guaranteed to win.

 

[adrian29uk]

So if they no go to LDC in court it will be reffered to Ruth Kelly, how long will this take?

 

[BensGrandad]

I don't think there is a set deadline, but the norm is about 6 months. So we would be looking at the start of March if there is no need to return to the high court in December.

Indeed some cases can take longer, but highly unlikely in this case.

This was posted earlier in answer to the same question.

 

[The Large One]

Well, that's my Wednesday screwed up then.

 

[Beach Hut]

If you booked a days leave sue LDC

 

[Ernest]

If you booked a days leave sue LDC

Do you want to bet on that