John Davies wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
well at least the judge knows the law when he said;
"I can't see why it's not a perfectly legitimate way for the council to proceed, so long as the reasons for the new decision stand up."
You are very observant.
Judicial review is an important tool for making administrative bodies accountable. However "groundless, unmeritorious or tardy attacks upon the validity of decisions made by public authorities in the field of public law" are frowned upon.
I'm not saying this Cardif challenge fits into any of the above categories but certainly in the past Judges have been very scathing in their judgements in cases such as these. It remains to be seen if this Judge mentions anything about the New Government guidlines.
Finally let me add this for those who are not familiar with the Judical process.
It needs to be emphasized that the Judicial review process is one of a supervisory nature. This means the court will make a ruling on the legality of the decision of the body or official under review. "It will not substitute its own decision". So even when an authority is obliged to reconsider its decision, it may still come to the same conclusion as it did the first time around, albeit by a correct process of decision-making. Thats why Mr. Cummings case is doomed to failure.
Best wishes
JD
its a lot more than that,
the decision taken has to be "so perverse no reasonable man would have made it"
in this case Cummings has either been badly advised or indeed, is so headstrong he ignored it.
christ the OFT report should be enough to get the council off the hook.
Login
Register
FAQ
