Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc: Difference between revisions

Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc (view source)

63 bytes removed , 17 July 2019

no edit summary

82,885

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{fullanat2|isda|electronic messages|2002|Electronic messages|1992}}{{cn}}
+{{cn}}A fine example of that old legal {{t|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 ({{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}. 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 ({{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}. 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  current [[common law]] '''[[email]] does not count as an “[[electronic messaging system]]”'''.