Shubtill v Port Authority of Finchley: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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]]. | {{a|jclr|}}<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. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 12: | ||
The defendant claimed that it had indicated its decision, which was no, in the course of that conversation. Mr Dickson of the defendant shook his head. | The defendant claimed that it had indicated its decision, which was no, in the course of that conversation. Mr Dickson of the defendant shook his head. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Orally or in writing]] | |||
Latest revision as of 21:48, 27 October 2022
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
from the Contrarian’s Bench Division.
|
Shubtill v. Port Authority of Finchley [1987] 3 JCLR 22
Appeal against the decision of ---.
(Cur adv. vult)
Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R.: 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.
- 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.
- Finchley Municipal Regulations (Port and Waterways Authorities)
The defendant claimed that it had indicated its decision, which was no, in the course of that conversation. Mr Dickson of the defendant shook his head.