Lisle-Mainwaring v Kensington and Chelsea: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
On the falfsification of {{tag|Latin}} maxims.
On the falfsification of {{tag|Latin}} maxims.


''[[Anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'', as they say, roundly routed in this great case in which decided that if a 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 s215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is concerned.
The notion that, as they say, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''<ref>“[[Little old ladies make bad law]]” .<r/ef> 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 s215 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.


{{egg}}
{{egg}}
{{draft}}
{{draft}}
Judgment: [[File:Lisle-mainwaring_v_RBKC.pdf]]
Judgment: [[File:Lisle-mainwaring_v_RBKC.pdf]]

Revision as of 13:36, 25 April 2017

The said stripey house

On the falfsification of Latin maxims.

The notion that, as they say, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt<ref>“Little old ladies make bad law” .<r/ef> 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 s215 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. Judgment: File:Lisle-mainwaring v RBKC.pdf