Enfield LBC v Castles Estate Agents Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1996] 36 EG 145-148(4)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: QBD 16 February 1996. C advertised and provided sales particulars of a semi-detached house and an adjoining building described as a bungalow. E issued two summonses against C alleging contravention of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 on the grounds that there was no planning permission for the use of the bungalow as a dwelling house. The magistrates court dismissed the summonses. Although the court found that the statements in the sales particulars were misleading, C had established the statutory defence in s2(1) that they had exercised due diligence. E appealed. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS55873 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 19314-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
QBD 16 February 1996. C advertised and provided sales particulars of a semi-detached house and an adjoining building described as a bungalow. E issued two summonses against C alleging contravention of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 on the grounds that there was no planning permission for the use of the bungalow as a dwelling house. The magistrates court dismissed the summonses. Although the court found that the statements in the sales particulars were misleading, C had established the statutory defence in s2(1) that they had exercised due diligence. E appealed. Appeal dismissed.