Forester:
not sure if true that spokesman said it would look at primary legislation to be applied yet again retrospectively. It certainly smacks of incompetence if not of some far greater crimes.

Appeal process is open to government, although I am not sure what they can appeal against. Change the rules because I didn't win.

What is concerning me is that at what point someone will say I made a mistake and therefore will not waste any further taxpayers money to save face and then try to implement significant changes in law in order to justify their wrong decision. Someone should be facing competency test for being up to a job.

I've read the whole judgment and it seems to me Lewisham easily argued that administrator went beyond his brief. The second line of Lewisham defence was the 4 tests which only failed on one count and that is the important local GP and commissioners support. I guess Lewisham never mentioned that they would end up with parts of dissolved trust because it would be up to management and local commissioning groups to make decisions about service provision of the acquired hospital. Certainly process of administration was not designed to recommend service changes in other trusts and that is why Lewisham won.

For those who look at the best solution for our neighbours, should not forget that the moment we allow government to act in breach of current laws is the moment we should call for resignations.