Sandman
Dean Austin
Really. But today is an appeal is it not? so they can appeal the decision of an appeal based on an original decision? surely not?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
Really. But today is an appeal is it not? so they can appeal the decision of an appeal based on an original decision? surely not?
Sandman
Dean Austin
1
lets hop he bloody well does not then. This farce has gone on long enough. Their delaying tactics of not appealing until the last possible day every single time.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The only court above this is the Supreme Court, and this judge would need to actively give them special permission to appeal to that. This is very rare - the Supreme Court only hears 80 cases per year.
The only other avenue is arguably the European Court of Human Rights, but the property part of that is essentially based on the Nazi seizure of Jewish property, and they couldn't go there unless they were receiving no form of compensation (cf a squabble about the amount)
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
That's game over for Archway. He's obviously already decided the 'prosecution' didn't present anything of note. The 'defence' is only 1/3 of the way through its case.
Dicko
Michael Carrick
You started using this abbreviation 'cf' a while back and it was bugging me that I didn't know what it was lol.. well I just checked Wikipedia and now I wish I hadn't.. I still don't know how I would use this stupid abbreviation?
Anyway, I guess we are all a lot more confident today than we were when this thing started yesterday morning right?
Thebarbarian
Nicola Berti
Let's play devils advocate (excuse the legal pun) , maybe He's already heard something from the prosecution that leads him to find in their favour !
Let's hope Fridays decision leads into a good weekend
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
Thursday 19/2/15 Spurs 5 Fiorentina 0
Friday 20/2/15 Judge rules CPO lawful
Sunday 22/2/15 Spurs 9 West Ham 0
Thursday 26/2/15 Fiorentina 0 Spurs 1
Sunday 1/3/15 Chelsea 3 Spurs 5
Monday 2/3/15 Spurs open 56000-seater "Carlsberg Arena"
They would get what they were offered under the terms of the CPO. Not sure if the extra offered by Spurs was included in that or not.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
You started using this abbreviation 'cf' a while back and it was bugging me that I didn't know what it was lol.. well I just checked Wikipedia and now I wish I hadn't.. I still don't know how I would use this stupid abbreviation?
Anyway, I guess we are all a lot more confident today than we were when this thing started yesterday morning right?
Yeah - it can be used as compare with or compared to.
It's a latin-based abbreviation like eg, etc, PS, sic, viz, vs or NB
I'm not sure I've particularly started using it. But perhaps it fits well with the pomp and dust of the high court!
Aston Villa fan Justice Dove regails the court with a story of an 'unsolicited text' he recieved last night. The text, from a taxi driver that he recently used in Birmingham, encouraged him to make Tottenham Hotspur 'sweat' on his decision much to the amusement of the court
Justice Dove made the court aware of the text for the purposes of clarity and tells the court he has not responded to it
SW QC: The assertion that the assumption of validity does not apply to the CPO is simply not the case
SW QC: I don't accept the proposition that the judgement is limited to the single issues Mr Lockhart-Mummary has contended it does.
SW QC: SoS knew before granting permission that changes to the scheme were possible
SW QC: It is telling that their is no complaint that SoS asserts that changes to scheme are wholly normal
SW QC: There is no evidence of the club having made a decision to pursue any changes to the scheme. There has been no application for anything in terms of planning consent or possible demolition
SW QC: On the back of unfounded press reports the applicants were concerned that the club may reduce the number of residential units in the scheme and brought this to the attention of the SoS
SW QC: There is no evidence that there has been any intention to reduce the number of residential units in the scheme
SW QC: The SoS notes that changes to the scheme are 'inchoate' (i.e not fully formed)
SW QC: SoS states that there was and is a compelling case to grant the CPO in the public interest and he would make the same decision again today
Justice Dove confesses to getting lost at Birmingham New Street as SW QC refers to a case involving CPO at the station for reference
SW QC: My learned friend talked about the possibility of new units and increased capacity of the stadium and admitted that he didn't know the impact of them.
SW QC: The appellant has come here and thrown in dust in the air about possibilities which have no certainty
SW QC: This is not simply a case that the objectors were silent beforehand but the case they are now advancing is opposite to the case they made to the SoS on the back of unfounded press articles around the reduction of residential units
Stephan Whale QC has finished giving his evidence on behalf of the Secretary of State
Justice Dove made the court aware of the text for the purposes of clarity and tells the court he has not responded to it
SW QC: The assertion that the assumption of validity does not apply to the CPO is simply not the case
SW QC: I don't accept the proposition that the judgement is limited to the single issues Mr Lockhart-Mummary has contended it does.
SW QC: SoS knew before granting permission that changes to the scheme were possible
SW QC: It is telling that their is no complaint that SoS asserts that changes to scheme are wholly normal
SW QC: There is no evidence of the club having made a decision to pursue any changes to the scheme. There has been no application for anything in terms of planning consent or possible demolition
SW QC: On the back of unfounded press reports the applicants were concerned that the club may reduce the number of residential units in the scheme and brought this to the attention of the SoS
SW QC: There is no evidence that there has been any intention to reduce the number of residential units in the scheme
SW QC: The SoS notes that changes to the scheme are 'inchoate' (i.e not fully formed)
SW QC: SoS states that there was and is a compelling case to grant the CPO in the public interest and he would make the same decision again today
Justice Dove confesses to getting lost at Birmingham New Street as SW QC refers to a case involving CPO at the station for reference
SW QC: My learned friend talked about the possibility of new units and increased capacity of the stadium and admitted that he didn't know the impact of them.
SW QC: The appellant has come here and thrown in dust in the air about possibilities which have no certainty
SW QC: This is not simply a case that the objectors were silent beforehand but the case they are now advancing is opposite to the case they made to the SoS on the back of unfounded press articles around the reduction of residential units
Stephan Whale QC has finished giving his evidence on behalf of the Secretary of State
61,000 surely?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Our generous offer was about 7-10 years ago when the other 70 odd businesses on the site sold up. I don't think it is of any relevance now that they've fought so long and seemingly been completely defeated.
They'll just get the standard CPO market valuation and a set number of weeks to vacate.
Tim Corner QC now beginning his evidence on behalf of Haringey Council
Judge reminds TC QC that he is not here to judge the merits of the CPO but the legal details
TC QC is now outlining the authority under which the council granted planning permission
TC QC: The cabinet had free reign to grant a compulsory purchase order in pursuance of regeneration which it did
TC QC: The cabinet had the facts before them, as given by officers, and on the basis of the facts it was satisfied the club had met the preconditions for granting CPO
Justice Dove pedantically correcting TC QC when he says Daniel Levy spoke to the cabinet as opposed to his statement being read out to them which is what happened
TC QC: Financial viablity, not commitment, was conceded by Archway. Even if you decided there was some irregularity it would be absurd to quash this on viability.
TC QC: It would be wholly wrong for the CPO to be quashed as the cabinet had the advice of officers in front of it, it decided what it wanted to do, it had the power to make the CPO, it made it and pursued it to today
TC QC: Archway says that the SoS failed to take account of material consideration changes to delivery as he was not made aware of them
TC QC: The question is had the SoS been told of discussions around changes could it have reasonably made a difference to his decision
TC QC: I do not believe it to be the case that it could have reasonably made a difference to SoS decision
TC QC: That the club should be considering changes is wholly unsurprising given the delay in the SoS decision
TC QC is now discussing the details of ancillary uses within the plans which was questioned by Archway QC yesterday
Tim Corner QC has now finished giving evidence on behalf of Haringey Council
Judge reminds TC QC that he is not here to judge the merits of the CPO but the legal details
TC QC is now outlining the authority under which the council granted planning permission
TC QC: The cabinet had free reign to grant a compulsory purchase order in pursuance of regeneration which it did
TC QC: The cabinet had the facts before them, as given by officers, and on the basis of the facts it was satisfied the club had met the preconditions for granting CPO
Justice Dove pedantically correcting TC QC when he says Daniel Levy spoke to the cabinet as opposed to his statement being read out to them which is what happened
TC QC: Financial viablity, not commitment, was conceded by Archway. Even if you decided there was some irregularity it would be absurd to quash this on viability.
TC QC: It would be wholly wrong for the CPO to be quashed as the cabinet had the advice of officers in front of it, it decided what it wanted to do, it had the power to make the CPO, it made it and pursued it to today
TC QC: Archway says that the SoS failed to take account of material consideration changes to delivery as he was not made aware of them
TC QC: The question is had the SoS been told of discussions around changes could it have reasonably made a difference to his decision
TC QC: I do not believe it to be the case that it could have reasonably made a difference to SoS decision
TC QC: That the club should be considering changes is wholly unsurprising given the delay in the SoS decision
TC QC is now discussing the details of ancillary uses within the plans which was questioned by Archway QC yesterday
Tim Corner QC has now finished giving evidence on behalf of Haringey Council
Last edited:
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I don't think we have a guy - we're not directly involved in this
SW is the Secretary of State's (Pickles')
TC is Haringey's