Timetable insufficient
Language: English Series: Times ; 6/7/87 28Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: Smith v SoS Environment and another , CA 22 June 1987. It was not an explanation of delay, sufficient to justify the court exercising its discretion to extend time under Order 3, rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, for a party merely to set out the chronology of events which had resulted in delay without giving any reasons which would tend to excuse it.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2327-27 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 39360-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2327-24 Docks plan | WB2327-25 Regional review | WB2327-26 Preserving listed building | WB2327-27 Timetable insufficient | WB2327-28 Acquisitions and mergers | WB2327-29 Conflict of interest | WB2327-30 Wrangle over use of name |
Smith v SoS Environment and another , CA 22 June 1987. It was not an explanation of delay, sufficient to justify the court exercising its discretion to extend time under Order 3, rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, for a party merely to set out the chronology of events which had resulted in delay without giving any reasons which would tend to excuse it.