83,229
edits
Re Spectrum Plus: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
For one thing, that would be a real bummer from Spectrum Plus’s point of view — fancy winning a landmark House of Lords case but — well, hard lines fellas. But [[Little old ladies make bad law|Little old book-debt securitisers make bad law]], right? | For one thing, that would be a real bummer from Spectrum Plus’s point of view — fancy winning a landmark House of Lords case but — well, hard lines fellas. But [[Little old ladies make bad law|Little old book-debt securitisers make bad law]], right? | ||
The traditional approach was stated crisply by Lord Reid in {{cite|West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc|Birmingham Corporation|1970| | The traditional approach was stated crisply by Lord Reid in {{cite|West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc|Birmingham Corporation|1970|AC|874}}, 898-899, a case concerning compulsory acquisition: <br> | ||
:“We cannot say that the law was one thing yesterday but is to be something different tomorrow. If we decide that [the existing rule] is wrong we must decide that it always has been wrong, and that would mean that in many completed transactions owners have received too little compensation. But that often happens when an existing decision is reversed.” | :“We cannot say that the law was one thing yesterday but is to be something different tomorrow. If we decide that [the existing rule] is wrong we must decide that it always has been wrong, and that would mean that in many completed transactions owners have received too little compensation. But that often happens when an existing decision is reversed.” | ||
Later on, Lord Nicholls said: | Later on, Lord Nicholls said: | ||