Read on Twitter
The Good Law Project website explains Mermaids lost on the "technical ground" of standing. The GLP says they "signalled the case is not straightforward" when they began which is "reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision".
Let's unpack three key errors:
Let's unpack three key errors:
(1) The word "technical" does not diminish anything as almost all legal arguments may be so described. Standing is a critical prerequisite to being heard, to being *relevant*. So Mermaids "technically" should never have brought the case. So Mermaids "technically" lost.
(2) On analysis, the case *was* straightforward. Mermaids didn't have standing to bring it. There is literally no more straightforward point I think of on which to lose a case.
(3) There is no necessary connection at all between the complexity of a case and the time taken to produce judgment. There might just be a lot to say about how obviously wrong you are. Or the judge might have had a big caseload. Or went on holiday for a bit.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
