Talk:Good Law Project

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References needed

It says that 11/14 cases have been won, but this needs a reference.

I have removed this claim. It is not sourced and does not appear to be supported by sources I can find. The claim was not that "11/14 cases have been won" but that eleven cases have been "approved". I suspect this originally meant "approved" as in "permission to bring proceedings for judicial review has been granted" not "the case has been won." In English administrative law, a court needs to give approval before proceedings for judicial review are issued.

I'm not suggesting it is in any way reliable, but the GLP themselves show a spreadsheet of their cases here, which lists fourteen actions which they regard as "lost" up to the end of 2021. Even on the lower standard of being allowed to bring the claim, they list five failures ("We were refused permission to bring this claim" or similar language) to the end of 2021 (and four before 2021). They list a further five cases to the end of 2021 that they lost in court ("The court refused our application...", "The court dismissed...", "The court was against us on the substance..." or similar language). There are also numerous cases listed that were withdrawn or refused but which they regard as a partial win because some of the changes they were arguing for happened anyway. This is not the basis for text in the article, but indicates that even on the best possible view of their record, the claim was both inaccurate and misleading. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]