TDO wrote:
I'm rolling your eyes because you clearly didn't look for the reference to Royden in the document, which could be found in seconds using the search function.
Yes I did look, I don't dispute Royden was referred to, just that the reference didn't have the approval of the human rights aspect that you claim.
Quote:
The Bellamy ruling was approved in the matter of issuance of new licences, nothing more
Quote:
So you're saying 'no appeal ever took place' but then you say the Bellamy ruling was 'approved'?
No appeal took place, correct. I never said the Bellamy ruling was approved, you did.
Quote:
And are you also saying that the human rights document is referring to something other than the judgement I pasted earlier? Thus the human rights document is referring to another judgement on the Wirral scenario?
If so then you must give a citation, to repeat the rules you seem to have decided to impose on the forum.
No, I'm not saying that.
Quote:
However, the human rights document says:
"In this regard, the Court of Appeal.......also endorsed the judgment of Sir Christopher Bellamy QC in R (Royden) v Wirral MBC [2003] LGR 290, concerning the issuance of new licences for taxi drivers."
Yes endorsed as far as issuing licences for taxi drivers was concerned, NOT about the human rights aspects at all.
Quote:
I think that's just summarising the appeal case shown in full further up the thread, it's not drawing a distinction between the "issuance of new licences for taxi drivers" and the human rights/premium aspect.
There never was an appeal.
Quote:
It says the Court of Appeal 'endorsed' Sir Christopher's judgement. That's all that really needs to be said, rather than getting bogged down on the difference between granting permission to appeal and an appeal per se.
You can't say just because Sir C's name was mentioned, the court endorsed everything he said.