R v Worthing BC, ex parte Bruce
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) 24 EG 149-152(4)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: CA, 20 October 1993. An appeal was dismissed in a situation where a tenant claimed to have a secure tenancy and right to buy and an order by consent was enforced. It was held that it was not necessary for there to be express admission that the appellant did not have a secure tenancy. A consent order was undoubtedly an implied admission that the appellant did not enjoy protection, if not an express admission.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS50907 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 1042-1001 |
CA, 20 October 1993. An appeal was dismissed in a situation where a tenant claimed to have a secure tenancy and right to buy and an order by consent was enforced. It was held that it was not necessary for there to be express admission that the appellant did not have a secure tenancy. A consent order was undoubtedly an implied admission that the appellant did not enjoy protection, if not an express admission.