Wycombe DC v Michael Shanly Group Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) 02 EG 112-114(3)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: QBD 12 July 1993. M was owner occupier of some land. He gave no express consent to the display of advertising hoardings on his land by X although there had been negotiations between them. On realising that X had erected the hoardings M removed them. It was concluded that the hoarding was erected without M`s knowledge or consent and M was not guilty of the offence of displaying an advertisement under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s224(5). W appealed on the grounds that not knowing about the advertisement was insufficient defence. Appeal dismissed citing "Merton LBC v Edmonds" (WB2926-35) which had held that not giving consent to an advertisement was a suitable defence under the Act.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS50020 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 73694-1001 |
QBD 12 July 1993. M was owner occupier of some land. He gave no express consent to the display of advertising hoardings on his land by X although there had been negotiations between them. On realising that X had erected the hoardings M removed them. It was concluded that the hoarding was erected without M`s knowledge or consent and M was not guilty of the offence of displaying an advertisement under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s224(5). W appealed on the grounds that not knowing about the advertisement was insufficient defence. Appeal dismissed citing "Merton LBC v Edmonds" (WB2926-35) which had held that not giving consent to an advertisement was a suitable defence under the Act.