Elliott v Islington LBC
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 10 EG 145-149(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 5 July 1990. Appeal by defendant borough (I) against a HC decision refusing to set aside an injunction requiring (I) to remove a tree invading the plaintiff Elliot`s (E)`s property. Tree belonging to I was not subject to a tree preservation order . I offered remedial measures to rebuild E`s wall around the tree. I cited Shelfer v City of London Electric Co whereby damages could be given in lieu of an injunction if the plaintiff`s legal rights were small. CA dismissed the Shelfer ruling in this instance. Held that breach of a citizens rights could not be corrected by a small money payment in this instance and in its view an order to remove the tree would not be in the least oppressive. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44331 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 46622-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 5 July 1990. Appeal by defendant borough (I) against a HC decision refusing to set aside an injunction requiring (I) to remove a tree invading the plaintiff Elliot`s (E)`s property. Tree belonging to I was not subject to a tree preservation order . I offered remedial measures to rebuild E`s wall around the tree. I cited Shelfer v City of London Electric Co whereby damages could be given in lieu of an injunction if the plaintiff`s legal rights were small. CA dismissed the Shelfer ruling in this instance. Held that breach of a citizens rights could not be corrected by a small money payment in this instance and in its view an order to remove the tree would not be in the least oppressive. Appeal dismissed.