Image from Google Jackets

London Merchant Securities plc and Trendworthy Two Ltd v Islington LBC

Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1987) 3 WLR 173-188(16)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: HL 20 May 1987. Ratepayers`(R) appeal from CA decision allowing only in part their appeal from a cc decision which dismissed their appeal against a completion notice served by the rating authority relating to the Angel Centre . The completion notice stated the property would be treated as completed on 1 September 1983. R had appealed to cc on the grounds that the building could not reasonably be expected to be completed by then. Cc held, dismissing the appeal, that by March 1983 the building was substantially complete and that works customarily done after substantial completion could reasonably be carried out within six months. On appeal, CA held allowing the appeal that upon the evidence before him the judge could not properly have come to the conclusion he did on the time reasonably required for fitting out . R appealed to HL on the grounds which failed in CA. HL held, in determining the starting date for the customary works, it was necessary to determine when the building was comp
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38010 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 8067-1001

HL 20 May 1987. Ratepayers`(R) appeal from CA decision allowing only in part their appeal from a cc decision which dismissed their appeal against a completion notice served by the rating authority relating to the Angel Centre . The completion notice stated the property would be treated as completed on 1 September 1983. R had appealed to cc on the grounds that the building could not reasonably be expected to be completed by then. Cc held, dismissing the appeal, that by March 1983 the building was substantially complete and that works customarily done after substantial completion could reasonably be carried out within six months. On appeal, CA held allowing the appeal that upon the evidence before him the judge could not properly have come to the conclusion he did on the time reasonably required for fitting out . R appealed to HL on the grounds which failed in CA. HL held, in determining the starting date for the customary works, it was necessary to determine when the building was comp