STS to go to Supreme Court

Going Forward

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/transport-and-tourism/supreme-court-challenge-to-150m-a-year-school-transport-service-to-go-ahead-1.1631218

Bus Eireann in for a bumpy ride....
STS seem confident of winning this.

AlekSmart

The first rule of ANY litigant must always read....."Be confident of winning,but be PREPARED to lose".

It will indeed be a very interesting scenario if this challenge reaches a full SC hearing.

$245,000 to Navistar represents walking around money,so it is interesting to note STS's reluctance to seek a further bung from Navistar on the grounds of "Embarassment".

Multinational's of any hue,but especially of American origin,simply do not do "Embarrassment",so I really would be reluctant to use it as a Commercial excuse

This embarassment obviously has also enveloped the new backers ,given their anonymity too ?

However,I see a far far larger element to this particular case than some high moral issue of allowing barefoot chizlers to get to school...

The High Court's upholding of the Dept's view that the School Transport Service was NOT a Commercial Contract,but instead,an "Administrative Arrangement" could equally hold for the "Administrative Arrangement" which underpins the State's Free Travel Scheme,which equally,is not on a Statutory footing....anybody see where I'm going with this....;)

Going Forward

AlekSmart wrote: »

The first rule of ANY litigant must always read....."Be confident of winning,but be PREPARED to lose".

It will indeed be a very interesting scenario if this challenge reaches a full SC hearing.

$245,000 to Navistar represents walking around money,so it is interesting to note STS's reluctance to seek a further bung from Navistar on the grounds of "Embarassment".

Multinational's of any hue,but especially of American origin,simply do not do "Embarrassment",so I really would be reluctant to use it as a Commercial excuse

This embarassment obviously has also enveloped the new backers ,given their anonymity too ?

However,I see a far far larger element to this particular case than some high moral issue of allowing barefoot chizlers to get to school...

The High Court's upholding of the Dept's view that the School Transport Service was NOT a Commercial Contract,but instead,an "Administrative Arrangement" could equally hold for the "Administrative Arrangement" which underpins the State's Free Travel Scheme,which equally,is not on a Statutory footing....anybody see where I'm going with this....;)

Backers, enveloped?