82,891
edits
Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc: Difference between revisions
Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc (view source)
Revision as of 09:23, 12 September 2018
, 12 September 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{fullanat2|isda|electronic messages|2002|Electronic messages|1992}} | {{fullanat2|isda|electronic messages|2002|Electronic messages|1992}} | ||
A fine example of that old legal maxim ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'': Little old ladies (and, in this case, aggrieved Welsh hotel owners) make bad law, {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} opines on the apparently harmless {{isdaprov|Notices}} Section (Section {{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}. In particular, it considers the meaning of “[[electronic messaging system]]” and, saucily, finds that it does not include [[email]]. | A fine example of that old legal maxim ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'': Little old ladies (and, in this case, aggrieved Welsh hotel owners) make bad law, {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} ([https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/1156.html&query=(title:(+greenclose+)) judgment]) opines on the apparently harmless {{isdaprov|Notices}} Section (Section {{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}. In particular, it considers the meaning of “[[electronic messaging system]]” and, saucily, finds that it does not include [[email]]. | ||
Let me say that again, in case you missed it: in the eyes of the common law, '''[[email]] does not count as an “[[electronic messaging system]]”'''. | Let me say that again, in case you missed it: in the eyes of the common law as articulated by [[Andrews J]], '''[[email]] does not count as an “[[electronic messaging system]]”'''. | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
Questions that won’t be answered for now, as NatWest has not appealed the decision. | Questions that won’t be answered for now, as NatWest has not appealed the decision. | ||
{{seealso}} | |||
*[https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/1156.html&query=(title:(+greenclose+)) [[Andrews J]]’s Judgment] | |||