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
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Stripey House.png|thumb|right|The said stripey house]]
{{a|casenote|[[File:Stripey House.png|thumb|450px|center|The said stripey house]]}}
On the falfsification of {{tag|Latin}} maxims.
On the falfsification of {{tag|Latin}} maxims.


The notion that, as they say, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''<ref>“[[Little old ladies make bad law]]” .</ref> 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.
The notion that, as they say, ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]''<ref>“[[Little old ladies make bad law]]” .</ref> 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-minded]]ness, 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.


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

Latest revision as of 19:14, 19 December 2020

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
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

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.


On the falfsification of Latin maxims.

The notion that, as they say, anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt[1] 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

References

  1. ↑ “Little old ladies make bad law” .
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Lisle-Mainwaring_v_Kensington_and_Chelsea&oldid=50638"