Lemmerbell Ltd and another v Britannia LAS Direct Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1998] 48 EG 188-193(6)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: CA 8 October 1998. Plaintiffs L appealed against the decision that break notices issued by B as the agent of Direct were valid. They argued that there was insufficient material from which it could be inferred that they had the authority to issue break notices. In light of further evidence it was held that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that B was the general agent of Direct. It follows that beak notices served were not valid. Appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | X95637 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 90278-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 8 October 1998. Plaintiffs L appealed against the decision that break notices issued by B as the agent of Direct were valid. They argued that there was insufficient material from which it could be inferred that they had the authority to issue break notices. In light of further evidence it was held that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that B was the general agent of Direct. It follows that beak notices served were not valid. Appeal allowed.