We won! There are no words for the relief I feel today. I don't doubt there's a long road ahead to make so many institutions accept that they've been misinformed, lied to, or just got it wrong but that is at least now on the horizon.
Am very impressed at how closely the Supreme Court aligned with Michael's analysis and arguments in this judgment. Reading through the full text, it seems like at least a 95% win, which is outstanding. (I guess it also helps a bit when your position is advanced by the superbly clear advocacy of Ben Cooper KC. I wonder if he might be persuaded to have a chat on the podcast at some point...?)
There are one or two details in there that I don't entirely understand, such as: if GRA section 9(1) is, as seems to have been ruled, not a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction, then what exactly *is* it?
I'm very much looking forward to hearing Michael's considered take on the whole thing. In the meantime - huge congratulations to everyone involved in the appeal!
Given that the GRA was introduced at least in (large) part in response to the ECHU ruling won’t any attempt to reconcile the GRA and EA be subject to the “spirit” of that ruling?
Thank you for a wonderfully clear explanation. It will no doubt come in very handy.
thankyou for the detailed and clear explanation.
We won! There are no words for the relief I feel today. I don't doubt there's a long road ahead to make so many institutions accept that they've been misinformed, lied to, or just got it wrong but that is at least now on the horizon.
Thank you, Michael, for all your work on this.
Am very impressed at how closely the Supreme Court aligned with Michael's analysis and arguments in this judgment. Reading through the full text, it seems like at least a 95% win, which is outstanding. (I guess it also helps a bit when your position is advanced by the superbly clear advocacy of Ben Cooper KC. I wonder if he might be persuaded to have a chat on the podcast at some point...?)
There are one or two details in there that I don't entirely understand, such as: if GRA section 9(1) is, as seems to have been ruled, not a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction, then what exactly *is* it?
I'm very much looking forward to hearing Michael's considered take on the whole thing. In the meantime - huge congratulations to everyone involved in the appeal!
Oh what a tangled web ...
Given that the GRA was introduced at least in (large) part in response to the ECHU ruling won’t any attempt to reconcile the GRA and EA be subject to the “spirit” of that ruling?
Really helpful summary. Thank you.