[CCWG-ACCT] Questions regarding access to IRP when harm is prospective

Malcolm Hutty 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
> ³undone.² 

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 mailing list