Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just for the record:https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/evangelou-v-mcnicol-appeal-judgment-20160812.pdf
Quote:The Labour Party is an unincorporated association. As such, it has no separate legal personality from that of its individual members and as a matter of law is not a legal entity distinct from them, as it would have been had it been a company or an industrial and provident society. It is, however, subject to rules, currently those in the 2016 Rule Book.Quote:19. The nature of the relationship between an unincorporated association and its individual members is governed by the law of contract:- (a) The contract is found in the rules to which each member adheres when he or she joins the association: see Choudhry v Tresiman [2003] EWHC 1203 (Comm) at [38] per Stanley Burnton J.Quote:In the present case, there is no challenge to the rationality of the eligibility criteria and the freeze date, and they are only said to be unauthorised on the true construction of the contract. It is, however, relevant to note that a discretion conferred on a party under a contract is subject to control which limits the discretion as a matter of necessary implication by concepts of honesty, good faith and genuineness, and need for absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality: see Sochimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 116, [2008] Bus LR 134 at [66] and Braganza v BP Shipping [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661, and the cases on mutual undertakings and bodies exercising self-regulatory powers mentioned at [47] below{my emphasis)
Quote:“It is plain from these authorities that a decision-maker’s discretion will be limited, as a matter of necessary implication, by concepts of honesty, good faith, and genuineness, and the need for the absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality. The concern is that the discretion should not be abused. Reasonableness and unreasonableness are also concepts deployed in this context, but only in a sense analogous to Wednesbury unreasonableness, not in the sense in which that expression is used when speaking of the duty to take reasonable care or otherwise deploying entirely objective criteria … ”.and
Quote:That approach was applied in Braganza v BP Shipping [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661, in which Baroness Hale stated that the principles to be applied were the same as those applied in public law cases, i.e. not only that the decision is made rationally and in good faith, but also that it is made consistently with its contractual purpose and, we add, that all relevant matters have been taken into account and irrelevant matters not taken into account.So Wednesdbury unreasonableness applies (and would be said to apply to our EC.:
Quote:(a decision) So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Provincial_Picture_Houses_Ltd_v_Wednesbury_Corp
https://medium.com/@DuncanWeldon/making-qe-more-effective-2ce10fda040c#.plr3k2w64Interestign blog about the new round of QE. One thing interesting, is ther market share of gilts the BOE owns now, 24%, which is making it difficult to find people to actually buy gilts off (!).
LBird wrote:The problem is, rodmanlewis, that 'socialist' (being democratic) and 'materialist' (being undemocratic) are opposed.Is that a statement of fact?
LBird wrote:'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.Which is itself an undemocratic proposition: shirley we can vote to make materialism democratic?
Also worth noting is the judge's use of minutes, reports and conference decisions (as well as procedural history). It is a pretty neat take down on shabby procedural manoeuvring. Some Labour rights now bleating about he left using 'the establishment courts', or nicking their toys, as it should be known.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/evangelou-v-mcnicol-20160808.pdfSome useful law:
Quote:It is well-established that:i) A person who joins an unincorporated association does so on the basis that he will be bound by its constitution and rules, if accessible, whether or not he has seen them and irrespective of whether he is actually aware of particular provisions (John v Rees [1970] 1 Ch 345 at page 388D-E).ii) The constitution and rules of an unincorporated association are generally regarded as intended to be comprehensive, and further terms will not readily be implied (Dawkins v Antrobus (1881) 17 Ch D 615 at page 621 (“Dawkins”) per Sir George Jessel MR, without demur from the Court of Appeal on appeal).iii) The constitution and rules of an unincorporated association can only be altered in accordance with the constitution and rules themselves (Dawkins at page 621, Harrington v Sendall [1903] Ch 921 at page 926 and Re Tobacco Trade Benevolent Society (Sinclair v Finlay) [1958] 3 All ER 353 at page 355B-C).iv) The proper interpretation of the constitution and rules of an unincorporated association, like any other contract, is generally a matter of law for the court. The court focuses on the wording of the contract as it stands. If the words are clear and unambiguous, then there is no need to look outside them. However, if the natural and ordinary meaning of the words is unclear or ambiguous, then the court will consider the relevant context, being concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to “what a reasonable person having all background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean” (Chartbrook Limited v Persimmon Homes Limited [2009] UKHL 38 at [14] per Lord Hoffmann; recently approved in Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36 at [15] per Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC). I consider this proposition, uncontroversial so far as it goes, in the context of the specific provisions of the Rule Book below (see paragraphs 14-16).The rulebook is a contract:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37009871?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
Quote:Delivering his judgement, Mr Justice Hickinbottom ruled that refusing the five the vote "would be unlawful as in breach of contract".OK, my ideology is Hebridean Exophagism.That means I never get tired of being wrong. Other axioms involve a fundamentakl disbelief in the historical existence of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and that knowledge emerges from social theory and practice.So, lets go.
We're talking about your ideology. Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by the signifiers 'social theory and practice'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCkÇatalhöyük is worth a read.
Quote:Çatalhöyük had no apparent social classes, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far. The most recent investigations also reveal little social distinction based on gender, with men and women receiving equivalent nutrition and seeming to have equal social status, as typically found in Paleolithic cultures.[18][19][20] Children observed domestic areas. They learned how to perform rituals and how to build or repair houses by watching the adults make statues, beads and other objects.LBird wrote:You really do struggle to read what's being written, YMS.Which bit of 'social practice' do you not understand?You seem to be some sort of 'idealist', who thinks 'ideas alone' constitute 'theory and practice'. You should read Marx some day.Right, unless you read and respond to what I write (rather than what you want to read), I'll halt our conversation here.Your choice, YMS.Yes, exactly, I am struggling to read what's being written, hence why I keep asking questions which go un-answered.Could a majority declare by fiat that a minorities activities are not harmful?If inorganic nature has no qualities and does not delimit what we may do with it, and the only limit is our social theory and practice, in principle, we could vote to travel faster than the speed of light? If not, where am I going wrong? We develop the theory, and act it out, shirley?
LBird wrote:Yes, our social theory and practice is our only limit.So, we could blot out the sun, travel faster than the speed of light, travel through time and have immortality, if we made that our social theory and practice?
LBird wrote:Should our society choose to delegate a measure of power to a 'minority group', then of course that can be done. But, clearly, if the 'minority group' try to follow a 'theory and practice' that is dangerous for the interests, purposes, needs and desires of the majority, then that delegated power will be withdrawn. So, 'democratic control' is an axiom for the social production of a socialist society.Couldn't the majority simply declare that the activities of the minority are not harmful, and simply make that so and true?
