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