Dacre Son and Hartley Ltd v North Yorkshire CC
Dacre Son and Hartley Ltd v North Yorkshire CC
- 2004
- Estates Gazette [2004] 45 EG 124 (CS) .
Divisional Court, 27 October 2004. Appeal by estate agents (D) by way of case stated against a magistrates' court decision convicting it of making false and misleading statements during the conduct of a proposed sale of a property, relating to a purported absence of damp in the property made at a time when it was aware that the property suffered from damp. Respondent council (NY) had laid a number of informations before the magistrates under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 s1(1) against D based on complaints from a prospective house purchaser (H). D submitted no charge to answer on the basis that the informations were insufficiently particularised within the meaning of the Magistrates Court Rules 1980 r 100, were therefore defective, could not be remedied by the evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to convict. D was convicted but the magistrates stated a case for appeal. "Held": appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to look at extraneous evidence when examining if the informations had been framed in such a way as to create real unfairness. There was no fatal defect in the informations. There was clear and strong evidence from H against D, which having been accepted, compelled the magistrates to convict D.
MISLEADING STATEMENTS
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968
ESTATE AGENTS
PROPERTY MISDESCRIPTIONS ACT 1991 S1(1)
MAGISTRATES' COURTS (HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS) RULES 1981 RULE 100
Divisional Court, 27 October 2004. Appeal by estate agents (D) by way of case stated against a magistrates' court decision convicting it of making false and misleading statements during the conduct of a proposed sale of a property, relating to a purported absence of damp in the property made at a time when it was aware that the property suffered from damp. Respondent council (NY) had laid a number of informations before the magistrates under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 s1(1) against D based on complaints from a prospective house purchaser (H). D submitted no charge to answer on the basis that the informations were insufficiently particularised within the meaning of the Magistrates Court Rules 1980 r 100, were therefore defective, could not be remedied by the evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to convict. D was convicted but the magistrates stated a case for appeal. "Held": appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to look at extraneous evidence when examining if the informations had been framed in such a way as to create real unfairness. There was no fatal defect in the informations. There was clear and strong evidence from H against D, which having been accepted, compelled the magistrates to convict D.
MISLEADING STATEMENTS
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968
ESTATE AGENTS
PROPERTY MISDESCRIPTIONS ACT 1991 S1(1)
MAGISTRATES' COURTS (HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS) RULES 1981 RULE 100