Thread by @abcpoppins

@RobertCPalmer13 @UKEUchallenge @A50Challenge @Lawyers4EU @LPrivileged @wolchover @Aros1354 @financialeyes @reallyglobal @VesperUK @ObiWokKanobe @bbclaurak @BBCWiltshire @mrjamesob @J_amesp

Court 19 waiting for Justice Ouseley’s decision for wilson

Refused permission

Delay

Referring to the referendum result, and going back over the the notification by PM. Now he’s referring to withdrawal act and the exit day. Claimants couldn’t vote because not resident and challenged the decision. Ref was advisory and didn’t need to be acted on.

Refers to electoral commission investigations opening and closing before the PM gave A50 notice. He’s gone through T/L of electoral commission findings which are of criminal standing. The only decision to be reviewed is 29/3/17.

Focusing on delay, good administration and the fact two Acts have been passed by Parliament since the vote. Procedural reasons for denying permission.

Bad for good administration l, undue delay and detrimental impact on negotiations and businesses prepared for the departure.

Claimants didn’t move promptly 20/8/16 buzzfeed reported Darren grimes anomaly. No investigations running when notice given. Claimants have failed to bring this in time. No grounds for extension of time.

He doesn’t accept claimants has to wait for EC report.

The referendum and notification are valid. Merits: he doesn’t regard it unarguable. No provision in common law as no statutory exists. Experts report was too late and not of any weight. He doesn’t like the experts report.

It’s fine for PM to carry on and allow other institutions to do their job. She didn’t need to interfere or change course.

He considers the claim is considerably late was hopeless and should not have been brought. Needed evidence the criminality would’ve had impact. Relief sought shown went too far unreasonable to expect PM to have changed course in light of findings.

This case had the potential to cause a constitutional crisis!

(We already have one!)