Booth and Booth v British Coal Corporation
Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; (1993) RVR 65-69(5)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: LT 11 November 1992. The court had preliminary issues to decide: whether the claimants were required to complete another damage notice or could rely on one made some years earlier, since when only emergency repairs had been carried out on the property, affected by mining subsidence, and whether a deferment notice had been served by the corporation and subsequently revoked. The tribunal found in favour of the claimants, who relied on Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 s3(3).| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS48848 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 68805-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
LT 11 November 1992. The court had preliminary issues to decide: whether the claimants were required to complete another damage notice or could rely on one made some years earlier, since when only emergency repairs had been carried out on the property, affected by mining subsidence, and whether a deferment notice had been served by the corporation and subsequently revoked. The tribunal found in favour of the claimants, who relied on Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 s3(3).