Shubtill v Port Authority of Finchley

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.

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service. →Go uptown Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort | Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

In the Court of Appeal

Shubtill v. Port Authority of Finchley [1987] 3 JCLR 22

Appeal against the decision of ---.

(Cur adv. vult)

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.

See also

• Orally or in writing