Lisle-Mainwaring v Kensington and Chelsea

On the falfsification of Latin maxims.

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service. →Go uptown The said stripey house 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.

The notion that, as they say, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt was roundly routed as a general proposition in this great case in which decided that if an aggrieved lady wishes to paint her house with red and white stripes out of sheer bloody-mindedness, then at law she is entitled to do so, at least as far as s. 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is concerned, and there is nothing the officious little pen pushers at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea can do to stop her.

See also

Judgment: File:Lisle-mainwaring v RBKC.pdf