Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘including
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:53 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2009
Posts: 4498
Location: Mesopotatia
Quote:
A dispute between a journalist and Nama over the meaning of the word “including” has spent four years travelling through the Irish courts with a final judgement expected from the Supreme Court soon, the Cleraun Media Conference heard this afternoon.
Journalist Gavin Sheridan detailed his long-running battle with the State-owned property agency which started in 2009 when he attempted to use European environmental legislation to extract some information about its operations.
Nama was not covered by Freedom of Information legislation but it was Sheridan who discovered that it could be forced to shine at least some light on how it was doing business by way of an Environmental Information regulation which covers public bodies “including... a board or other body established by or under statute”.

Initially Nama denied that it was a public body and then, when it was forced to accept that it was in fact such a body, it claimed that the “including” in the legislation actually meant “may include”.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/ ... -1.1969086

A win here may be a little too late in the day. The delay has certainly worked in NAMA's favour.

_________________
The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'get by'. The ordinary men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what?
Sophie Scholl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:01 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 9020
'Including' does not mean 'may include'. The correct formulation for 'may include' is 'may include'.

There, I've saved you 4 years and hundreds of thousands in legal fees.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:13 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17351
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Barney Gumble wrote:
'Including' does not mean 'may include'. The correct formulation for 'may include' is 'may include'.

There, I've saved you 4 years and hundreds of thousands in legal fees.


I had this exact same argument with a corporate lawyer last week. It's actually an interesting legal point. His position is that "including" actually means "may include" in the sense of the following:

If you have a red-coloured wooden block with the number 9 written on it, consider the following clause: "I agree to eat all the blue blocks, including the one numbered 9".

Do you eat block 9? Or is this an indication that the phrase was in error, and you never intended to eat block 9. Maybe you thought block 9 was blue, or it was previously blue, but now it's not so you shouldn't have to eat it.

"May include" is in fact fraught with danger, since it has two different meanings. As well as implying that block 9 may or may not be blue, it can also imply that you might or might not intend to include that item in the list at all.

What you really mean is "including block 9, should it be determined to be blue". Or words to that effect.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:21 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5249
Mantissa wrote:
I had this exact same argument with a corporate lawyer last week. It's actually an interesting legal point. His position is that "including" actually means "may include" in the sense of the following:

If you have a red-coloured wooden block with the number 9 written on it, consider the following clause: "I agree to eat all the blue blocks, including the one numbered 9".

Do you eat block 9? Or is this an indication that the phrase was in error, and you never intended to eat block 9. Maybe you thought block 9 was blue, or it was previously blue, but now it's not so you shouldn't have to eat it.

"May include" is in fact fraught with danger, since it has two different meanings. As well as implying that block 9 may or may not be blue, it can also imply that you might or might not intend to include that item in the list at all.

What you really mean is "including block 9, should it be determined to be blue". Or words to that effect.

This is why we can't have nice things.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:31 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 9020
Mantissa wrote:
If you have a red-coloured wooden block with the number 9 written on it, consider the following clause: "I agree to eat all the blue blocks, including the one numbered 9".

I'd read that as 'I agree to eat all the blue blocks, including the [blue block] numbered 9'. But then I've a background in literature rather than law.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:35 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jun 5, 2008
Posts: 1997
Location: I like Dalkey
Stop talking about blue and red play blocks!

Discuss what it's REALLY about!

_________________
.
Housing should be affordable and plentiful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:49 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5249
Homeboy wrote:
Discuss what it's REALLY about!

There's no doubt about what it's really about though. It's about NAMA wanting to operate in total secrecy and using its considerable legal resources to indefinitely delay any uncomfortable disclosures.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Last edited by Eschatologist on Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:52 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 2, 2008
Posts: 1612
Location: Ireland
Justice delayed is justice denied.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:56 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17351
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Homeboy wrote:
Stop talking about blue and red play blocks!

Discuss what it's REALLY about!


Eating blocks is not play, Homeboy. [shakes head]

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:57 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17351
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Eschatologist wrote:
Homeboy wrote:
Discuss what it's REALLY about!

There's no doubt about what it's really about though. It's about NAMA wanting to operate in total secrecy and using its considerable legal resources to indefinitely delay any uncomfortable disclosures.



Absolutely.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:33 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 11735
Location: Multiverse
Fair play to Gavin.

That's true journalism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:26 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 2880
Location: God's Country
Barney Gumble wrote:
'Including' does not mean 'may include'. The correct formulation for 'may include' is 'may include'.

There, I've saved you 4 years and hundreds of thousands in legal fees.


NAMA's response: Thank you for your judgment. You may include us out. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:46 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Mar 4, 2009
Posts: 1533
Citizens should be able to rely on state bodies to abide by the judgments of the Courts and determinations by the Information Commissioner. NAMA are entitled to appeal, but the default position in the interim should be that they abide by the judgments/decisions until overturned. In my view, the law should be changed to provide for this. It is repugnant that a state body which is intended to only have a 6 to 10 year lifetime should spend 4 years appealing legal determinations as to citizens rights vis-à-vis that body. There is something fundamentally wrong in citizen's rights being denied by one state body rejecting the determinations of more qualified state bodies in that regard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nama legal battle with journalist over meaning of ‘inclu
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:48 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17351
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Negative Covenant wrote:
Citizens should be able to rely on state bodies to abide by the judgments of the Courts and determinations by the Information Commissioner. NAMA are entitled to appeal, but the default position in the interim should be that they abide by the judgments/decisions until overturned. In my view, the law should be changed to provide for this. It is repugnant that a state body which is intended to only have a 6 to 10 year lifetime should spend 4 years appealing legal determinations as to citizens rights vis-à-vis that body. There is something fundamentally wrong in citizen's rights being denied by one state body rejecting the determinations of more qualified state bodies in that regard.


Actually I don't agree with this, much as I find NAMA's position disgraceful. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, so once the information is released the appeal would become moot.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Click for Latest Posts LATEST POSTS Click for Forum List FORUMS   

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster

  

Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!