I suspect he will be refused leave to appeal and if he asks the supreme court to override this they will also refuse. The supreme court has to be selective about which cases to take and if the appeal court judgement is legally watertight, this case probably doesn't fit the SC's criteria . . . .
Sincerely hope so. Is that a fairly quick process? i.e. SC can see fairly quickly that the criteria obviously isn't met so therefore kicks it out straight away..
There is a very short period (7 days) in which the Applicant can request permission for a Judicial Review of a Decision by the Queens Bench Division, and then it is a matter of time before that request can be considered. They will, eventually be given a decision on two points : Is permission granted to Appeal against the Decision of the QBD?, and, Is permission granted for Judicial Review?
If the first permission is refused, then there is no recourse to the Supreme Court. But if the first is accepted and the second is refused, then the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to hear the matter. [I still don't know which of these was refused yesterday. It's common for a Judge to immediately grant permission to Appeal and a few minutes later refuse permission for a JR]
In that situation, the Applicant then has 28 days to apply to the Supreme Court.
The Registrar will inform an appellant if they have no jurisdiction within a few days (holidays excepted).
The Supreme Court has a backlog of cases and a new matter is likely to take several months before it is listed - at this time of year we would now be looking at the late autumn.
Matters brought to the Supreme Court where the Administrative Court (in this case the QBD) had given permission to Appeal but had refused a JR, would be listed for a first hearing of an Appeals Committee to decide if it is eligible. Since last year, that has become a stricter test for both Criminal and Civil matters, and well over half of the matters brought forward have failed. For a Civil matter to be accepted, it must address a point of law of general public importance. If it succeeds, then a date will be set for the parties to attend the full hearing, typically many months later.
At that hearing, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments on the point of law, and not on the substantive matter from the lower Court. In the event that the Supreme Court finds that the lower Court had erred in law, then it has a range of powers, but would most probably simply quash (i.e. overturn) the Decision which it found to be unlawful.
In this case, I'm not sure that I can think of a decision which could be found unlawful, and which the Supreme Court might agree might be unlawful and in the public interest, and which they would then quash, and which decision would then halt the development in Manchester. But we can admire people who display tenacity (a.k.a. stubborness, commitment, enthusiasm, etc.).