Camden LBC v Marshall
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; [1996] 1 WLR 1345-1350(4)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: QBD 14 June 1996. M, owner of a house in multiple occupation, was served notice by C to carry out specified works to the property by 25 December 1993. When the works had still not been completed over fifteen months after the prescribed date, C laid an information against M on 19 June 1995, alleging failure to comply with a term of the notice within the specified time. The court below ruled that they had no jurisdiction to try the information as it had been laid outside the six-month time limit under the Magistrates` Courts Act 1980 s127. The question to be considered by the High Court was whether the offence was complete once the date for compliance had been reached, or continued to be committed not withstanding the expiry date. "Held" for the latter view; matter remitted to the justices.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS56213 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 21951-1001 |
QBD 14 June 1996. M, owner of a house in multiple occupation, was served notice by C to carry out specified works to the property by 25 December 1993. When the works had still not been completed over fifteen months after the prescribed date, C laid an information against M on 19 June 1995, alleging failure to comply with a term of the notice within the specified time. The court below ruled that they had no jurisdiction to try the information as it had been laid outside the six-month time limit under the Magistrates` Courts Act 1980 s127. The question to be considered by the High Court was whether the offence was complete once the date for compliance had been reached, or continued to be committed not withstanding the expiry date. "Held" for the latter view; matter remitted to the justices.