Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Claimant in person Rory Dunlop (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant Hearing date: 4 July 2013 ____________________
RULING ON REQUEST NOT TO HAND DOWN HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________
(a) I cannot, of course, speak for what the Court of Appeal might have done in this case had the issue arisen, nor can I speak of the court's practice generally, other than to observe that paragraph 6.4 of Practice Direction 52A suggests that it will allow an appeal by consent only if, at the lowest, "good and sufficient reasons for doing so" are demonstrated. In this case two High Court Judges other than me were of the view that issues that the Claimant wanted to raise were arguable.
(b) The Court of Appeal would have become aware had it been fully informed about the case (as I became aware when considering the papers in the case) that the Appeal Panel of the GTEC, before which the Claimant's appeal was heard, decided on the procedure it was proposing to adopt (and, as a consequence, the material it would consider) before it took any advice from its legal assessor.
UPON THE COURT ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH PARTIES THAT THE DRAFT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE HANDED DOWN
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.