Dilieto v Ealing LBC
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; [1998] 3 WLR 4 December 1998, 1403-1419(17)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: QBD 2 April 1998. In 1964 the defendant D was granted planning permission for a warehouse subject to the condition that the yard was kept clear at all times. in 1994 a planning officer found that the yard was being used in breach of planning permission. Having failed to comply with a breach of condition notice the defendant was convicted, fined and ordered to pay costs. On appeal by way of case D contested that the breach of condition notice was invalid as the condition was so vague as to be a nullity and it had been served after the 10 year limitation period for enforcement had expired. The court allowed the appeal stating that the defendants contention of the notice being invalid due to being vague was unfounded but that he was entitled to contest it on the ground that it was out of time. The conviction, fines and order to pay costs were quashed, the case was remitted to the magistrates` courts for rehearing. Appeal allowed with costs.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS59844 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 90483-1001 |
QBD 2 April 1998. In 1964 the defendant D was granted planning permission for a warehouse subject to the condition that the yard was kept clear at all times. in 1994 a planning officer found that the yard was being used in breach of planning permission. Having failed to comply with a breach of condition notice the defendant was convicted, fined and ordered to pay costs. On appeal by way of case D contested that the breach of condition notice was invalid as the condition was so vague as to be a nullity and it had been served after the 10 year limitation period for enforcement had expired. The court allowed the appeal stating that the defendants contention of the notice being invalid due to being vague was unfounded but that he was entitled to contest it on the ground that it was out of time. The conviction, fines and order to pay costs were quashed, the case was remitted to the magistrates` courts for rehearing. Appeal allowed with costs.