London Docklands Development Corporation v Rank Hovis Ltd
Language: English Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; (1986) JPL 825-828(4)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: CA 23 July 1985. Appeal by R against decision granting L an injunction to restrain R from further demolishing a listed building which it owned. L had brought proceedings, for the protection and enforcement of a public right, without consent of the Attorney General. The injunction was granted. R appealed. L contended that it could bring proceedings under the Local Government Act 1972 s222(1)(a) . CA held that L, though invested with the powers of a planning authority under Part 16 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 , did not come within the definition of "local authority" within the meaning of the 1972 Act and had no power to seek an injunction independently of the Attorney General. The proceedings were not maintainable by L in its own name and the injunction ought not to have been granted. CA judge would discharge it accordingly. Appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37115 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 2389-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 23 July 1985. Appeal by R against decision granting L an injunction to restrain R from further demolishing a listed building which it owned. L had brought proceedings, for the protection and enforcement of a public right, without consent of the Attorney General. The injunction was granted. R appealed. L contended that it could bring proceedings under the Local Government Act 1972 s222(1)(a) . CA held that L, though invested with the powers of a planning authority under Part 16 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 , did not come within the definition of "local authority" within the meaning of the 1972 Act and had no power to seek an injunction independently of the Attorney General. The proceedings were not maintainable by L in its own name and the injunction ought not to have been granted. CA judge would discharge it accordingly. Appeal allowed.