82,927
edits
Re Spectrum Plus: Difference between revisions
→Stare decisis
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:“Whatever its faults the retrospective application of court rulings is straightforward. Prospective overruling creates problems of discrimination. Born out of a laudable wish to mitigate the seeming unfairness of a retrospective change in the law, prospective overruling can beget unfairness of its own. | :“Whatever its faults the retrospective application of court rulings is straightforward. Prospective overruling creates problems of discrimination. Born out of a laudable wish to mitigate the seeming unfairness of a retrospective change in the law, prospective overruling can beget unfairness of its own. | ||
:“This is most marked in criminal cases, where ‘pure’ prospective overruling would leave a successful defendant languishing in prison.” | :“This is most marked in criminal cases, where ‘pure’ prospective overruling would leave a successful defendant languishing in prison.” | ||
While the court didn’t rule out the idea of prospective overruling —“‘Never say never’ is a wise judicial precept, in the interests of all citizens of the country” — this present case was “miles away from the exceptional category in which alone prospective overruling would be legitimate” | While the court didn’t rule out the idea of prospective overruling —“‘Never say never’ is a wise judicial precept, in the interests of all citizens of the country” — this present case was “miles away from the exceptional category in which alone prospective overruling would be legitimate”. | ||
So no, fellas. Natwest, you are shit out of luck.<ref>Being shit out of luck is something of a habit of Natwest’s — see [[Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc - Case Note|Greenclose]] | |||
==[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]== | ==[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]== | ||