URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 55978--------------------------------------------------
       The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: January 31, 2025, 6:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Having discussed this with cp8759, how can we achieve this?
       My reasons:
       1. Reviews should be conducted by higher adjudicators who are
       not peers.
       2. It is really difficult at present even to secure a second
       review though I have done so at the TPT*
       2. If set up, a higher tribunal would save much expense etc of
       seeking a Judicial Review.
       *
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iz73a1Rv3Dov2E_2wsYGGbKtVgtRE6dR/view
       #Post#: 55991--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: andy_foster
       Date: January 31, 2025, 6:48 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       “O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to
       accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that
       which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other
       through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.”
       Wisdom. Serenity.
       #Post#: 56002--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: Southpaw82
       Date: January 31, 2025, 7:16 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
       >
       > 1. Reviews should be conducted by higher adjudicators who are
       not peers.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       So you say, but that is not how it works in the wider judicial
       system, particularly tribunals. What you want is something akin
       to the First Tier Tribunal/Upper Tribunal system that exists
       almost uniformly elsewhere. Look at the Tribunals, Courts and
       Enforcement Act 2007.
       #Post#: 56021--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: January 31, 2025, 8:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
       >
       > “O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind
       to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that
       which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other
       through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.”
       >
       > Wisdom. Serenity.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I do believe it can be changed.  ;D  And I do not intend to
       injure my knees in the process.  8)
       #Post#: 56095--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: mickR
       Date: January 31, 2025, 5:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
       >
       > [quote author=andy_foster link=topic=4932.msg55991#msg55991
       date=1738327697]
       > “O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind
       to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that
       which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other
       through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.”
       >
       > Wisdom. Serenity.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I do believe it can be changed.  ;D  And I do not intend to
       injure my knees in the process.  8)
       [/quote]
       :o  :o  :o  a. I reading to much into that?  ;D
       #Post#: 56103--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: andy_foster
       Date: January 31, 2025, 7:54 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Mick, you are a very, very bad man
       #Post#: 56128--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: mickR
       Date: February 1, 2025, 8:13 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji56.png
       #Post#: 58928--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: February 19, 2025, 3:03 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I raised this with Mr Chan on Monday.
       #Post#: 58963--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: John U.K.
       Date: February 20, 2025, 1:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
       >
       > I raised this with Mr Chan on Monday.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       And the outcome was . . . ?
       #Post#: 58980--------------------------------------------------
       Re: The need for a higher Tribunal
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: February 20, 2025, 4:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       @John U.K. General chat about Scotland, High Court and Court of
       Appeal. One adjudicator not binding on another, prejudice,
       Jackson J etc. and Soneji.  Not in the hearing room, of course.
       And this, of which I was kindly given a hard copy!:
  HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1huH4PnDmXKAdMmlhvjU_F5YHaI56JX51/view
       Re the linked case: it appears that two Adjudicators have now
       said that, although it is not binding, it is persuasive. Not
       appears, it was said to me and to mrmustard on separate
       occasions - Monday and Wednesday respectively. This may well
       cause problems re prejudice arguments and website issues in
       future.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1