A5 WTC (New Road from Aughnacloy to Derry)

WeeDonns · July 02, 2025, 08:22:50 AM

Quote from: David McKeown on July 01, 2025, 10:22:36 PMI see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal. Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action. Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/

Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

sensethetone · July 02, 2025, 09:37:32 AM

Wonder will the climate change issues that's stopping the A5 stop the gold miners?

tiempo · July 02, 2025, 09:40:36 AM

Quote from: sensethetone on July 02, 2025, 09:37:32 AMWonder will the climate change issues that's stopping the A5 stop the gold miners?

Cemtex for them boys surely

armaghniac · July 02, 2025, 10:56:59 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/money/other/we-asked-northern-ireland-political-parties-what-they-are-going-to-do-to-make-sure-the-new-a5-road-finally-gets-built-this-is-what-they-said/ar-AA1HM11z

David McKeown · July 02, 2025, 06:39:48 PM

Quote from: WeeDonns on July 02, 2025, 08:22:50 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on July 01, 2025, 10:22:36 PMI see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal. Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action. Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/
Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

I'm not sure why the return of lands happened that wasn't the focus or an outcome of the original decision (unless I missed it)

trileacman · July 03, 2025, 01:30:45 PM

Quote from: David McKeown on July 02, 2025, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: WeeDonns on July 02, 2025, 08:22:50 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on July 01, 2025, 10:22:36 PMI see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal. Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action. Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/
Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

I'm not sure why the return of lands happened that wasn't the focus or an outcome of the original decision (unless I missed it)

The original decision struck out the vesting orders, therefore DFI, in the eyes of the law, are trespassing on land they don't own.

David McKeown · July 03, 2025, 03:29:15 PM

Quote from: trileacman on July 03, 2025, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on July 02, 2025, 06:39:48 PM
Quote from: WeeDonns on July 02, 2025, 08:22:50 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on July 01, 2025, 10:22:36 PMI see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal. Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action. Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/
Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

I'm not sure why the return of lands happened that wasn't the focus or an outcome of the original decision (unless I missed it)

The original decision struck out the vesting orders, therefore DFI, in the eyes of the law, are trespassing on land they don't own.

I misunderstood the position on vesting. The vesting was contingent on the decision to proceed with the road being lawful so whilst the vesting themselves weren't unlawful per se, the quashing of the original decision has in effect voided them ab initio. Hence why the land is being returned. Had missed that bit which in my defence was early on in the Judgement.

LC · August 05, 2025, 09:02:59 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgv5wnd9gjo

Is this not a complete waste of and more driven by optics?

I am no legal expert but I got the impression the previous ruling was a penalty kick so to speak.

Hereiam · August 05, 2025, 09:21:04 PM

https://wesleyjohnston.wordpress.com/2025/07/21/key-consequences-of-the-a5-legal-challenge/

Wesley Johnston explains it well here.

David McKeown · August 06, 2025, 11:16:41 PM

Quote from: Hereiam on August 05, 2025, 09:21:04 PMhttps://wesleyjohnston.wordpress.com/2025/07/21/key-consequences-of-the-a5-legal-challenge/

Wesley Johnston explains it well here.

Not sure he does. I don't think he's actually understood the judgement from a legal perspective. Clearly doesn't understand the status of unincorporated international treaties of the supremacy of Parliament.

David McKeown · August 06, 2025, 11:18:27 PM

Quote from: LC on August 05, 2025, 09:02:59 PMhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgv5wnd9gjo

Is this not a complete waste of and more driven by optics?

I am no legal expert but I got the impression the previous ruling was a penalty kick so to speak.

I'm surprised at it not because it was a water tight judgement or anything but because the judgement basically said that it would be very easy to fix the flaws in the original process and just retake the decision. I would have thought that would be easier but there may also be strong grounds to appeal.