Shubtill v Port Authority of Finchley: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
The plaintiff [[Ernest Shubtill]] had sought approval from the defendant local authority to operate a punt within the Hampstead Garden Suburb. Authority was declined. The defendant claimed it did this, [[pursuant to]] regulation, during a face-to-face meeting with the plaintiff, as it was entitled to do in accordance with the governing regulations. The regulation required notification of the consideration to be delivered [[orally or in writing]].
{{cn}}<center>In the Court of Appeal <br><br>
<big>{{citet|Shubtill|Port Authority of Finchley|1987|3 JCLR|22}}</big></center> <br><br>
 
{{quote|{{smallcaps|Appeal}} against the decision of ---.}}
 
{{right|(''Cur adv. vult)''}}
 
{{cocklecarrot}}: The plaintiff, [[Ernest Shubtill]] had sought approval from the defendant local authority to operate a punt within the Hampstead Garden Suburb. Authority was declined. The defendant claimed it did this, [[pursuant to]] regulation, during a face-to-face meeting with the plaintiff, as it was entitled to do in accordance with the governing regulations. The regulation required notification of the consideration to be delivered [[orally or in writing]].


{{box|Any person affected by a direction issued under this subchapter may request reconsideration by the official who issued it or in whose name it was issued. This request may be made [[orally or in writing]], and the decision of the official receiving the request may be rendered [[orally or in writing]] within seven days of the request.
{{box|Any person affected by a direction issued under this subchapter may request reconsideration by the official who issued it or in whose name it was issued. This request may be made [[orally or in writing]], and the decision of the official receiving the request may be rendered [[orally or in writing]] within seven days of the request.