[CCWG-ACCT] Questions regarding access to IRP when harm is prospective
malcolm at linx.net
Wed Apr 8 18:54:41 UTC 2015
On 08/04/2015 15:50, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Malcolm, I don¹t completely agree that the ³inadequate remedy² prong of
> this analysis is irrelevant. It is true in the ordinary setting we are
> talking about an inadequate remedy ³at law² - and (in the US at least)
> that usually means money damages won¹t resolve. But putting money damages
> aside, I don¹t know why an individual/entity seeking prospective
> injunctive relief should not be called upon to demonstrate that an action
> of the board/staff cannot be rolled back effectively, and any harm
Ah, sorry, we're talking at cross purposes, and it's my fault.
The question I now see that you actually asked was about the standard
for prospective relief; I thought you were suggesting that chart as a
basis for deciding the standard for injunctive relief generally, and I
started on that subject. Which was quite silly of me; on looking again
it is obvious that you weren't and couldn't have been. It's my fault for
replying when distracted by other things.
Sorry for this misunderstanding.
> I agree that the test formulated is not simply a ³standing² test - the
> test for standing is ³materially affected.² The test in the chart relates
> to when a court will entertain a request for prospective relief from
> someone with standing (that is to say has been or will be materially
> affected, et.c)
OK, we're on the same page then.
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community