The phrase "arguable grounds" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are discussing a basis for a claim or argument that can be debated or contested.
Example: "There are arguable grounds for the decision made by the committee, and it is essential to review the evidence presented."
Alternatives: "debatable basis" or "contested grounds".
This is being resisted, on the arguable grounds that list MSPs should not be allowed to preponderate over constituency members, but also, less altruistically, because it will lead to a severe outbreak of turf wars among those scrabbling for seats.
"In my judgment, neither Amnesty International and the other human rights groups, nor Belgium, have arguable grounds for judicial review and accordingly I shall refuse both applications," the judge said.
It is those, as Mechel implied and other companies have painfully experienced, of Russia's taxmen, ready to pounce, arbitrarily or for political purposes, but not necessarily without arguable grounds.So it is no surprise that Russia's steelmen see the outside world as a kinder place.
He was told that no arguable grounds had been raised which could affect the safety of the verdict.
The notion that the Huffington Post is somehow going to compete with, much less displace, the best traditional newspapers is arguable on other grounds as well.
It is arguable that the grounds in Australia are more expansive than the US, as many do not require a conviction or, in some instances, even the commission of a crime: mere suspicion of or alleged involvement in criminal conduct is enough to trigger visa cancellation and removal.
But he said the proposed grounds were arguable, although not sufficiently strong to warrant bail being granted before the hearing.
It is arguable that dispositions must be grounded in some intrinsic, non-dispositional attributes, but we have no conception whatsoever of what the intrinsic nature of matter might be.
But a High Court judge said the grounds raised were "not arguable".
High Court judge Mr Justice Kenneth Parker ruled that one of the billionaire's grounds for review was "arguable".
Deputy High Court Judge Michael Supperstone QC said: "None of the grounds put forward are arguable and permission to apply for judicial review is refused".
