tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8100623808925780890..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Monday miscellanyVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40469352539103374602013-09-02T17:29:06.880+01:002013-09-02T17:29:06.880+01:00" and that has to have some flexibility where..."<i> and that has to have some flexibility where for example mistakes on the facts are made by a lower court.</i>"<br /><br />There is no court <b>now</b> that lacks a mechanism for dealing with mistakes of fact made below.<br /><br />I doubt that any decision is in play that would eliminate such.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30856567808767531462013-09-02T15:23:15.175+01:002013-09-02T15:23:15.175+01:00Re Lumos Skincare Limited v Sweet Squared Limited...Re Lumos Skincare Limited v Sweet Squared Limited, when it comes down to it, doesn't the Court of Appeal have the choice of carrying out a review or a rehearing as it wishes? Why tie its hands by having a Supreme Court decision on the issue? I think there's a general principle that higher Courts can decide their own procedure for themselves, and that has to have some flexibility where for example mistakes on the facts are made by a lower court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com