CO/5012/2017: Phillip Mott QC refuses permission for Judicial Review

Phillip Mott QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, today refused permission for Judicial Review in CO/5012/2017.

CO/5012/2017 is subject to an application for a confidentiality order so I have redacted the applicant's name in the documents that I have put online.

See

Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review in CO/5012/2017

for scanned copies of the decision by Phillip Mott QC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

There are TWO legal challenges to Brexit currently active

Things took an interesting turn yesterday when I was contacted with information that my legal challenge to Brexit,  Brexit Legal Challenge: The Prime Minister has three weeks to respond , is not the only active legal challenge to Brexit. Before yesterday I was totally unaware of the other Claim for Judicial Review. Due to confidentiality considerations I can't disclose much about the other Claim for Judicial Review. The other Claim has a single Defendant, the Prime Minister. The other Claim was sealed by the Court on 31st October 2017. My own Claim was sealed by the Court on 1st November 2017. By chance, both Claims were served on the Government Legal Department on 6th November 2017. The effect is that the Government Legal Department must respond with its Grounds of Resistance to my Claim and the other Claim by 27th November 2017. Things are getting really interesting for the Prime Minister. Watch this space.
Read more

CO/5012/2017: An application to renew was made some time ago

Permission for Judicial Review in CO/5012/2017 was refused by Phillip Mott QC in January. See CO/5012/2017: Phillip Mott QC refuses permission for Judicial Review for a link to the decision of Phillip Mott QC. An application was made some weeks ago to renew. This means that in due course that CO/5012/2017 will be considered at an oral hearing. There is significant overlap between the substance of CO/5012/2017 and the so-called Article 50 Challenge by Liz Webster (CO/5929/2017) regarding which an application was made to renew in the last 48 hours. It would make a great deal of sense if both Claims for Judicial Review were considered at the same oral hearing.
Read more