Image from Google Jackets

Hambro Life Assurance plc v White Young & Partners and others

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6355) 10 October 1987, 227-230(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 13 April 1987. Appeal by plaintiffs (H) against decision of official referee, who decided a preliminary issue against H in favour of the fourth defendants, Salisbury District Council (S). The other three defendants were architects, building contractors and developers, however S is the sole respondent in this appeal. The action concerns the extent to which a local authority may be liable for failure adequately to discharge its statutory functions under the Public Health Acts and the building regulations. In 1979 H acquired the freehold of a site upon which 8 industrial warehouses were constructed and let on 25 year leases to various companies. Building regulation approval was obtained by S. Since H purchased the site, serious structural damage occurred to the units. At issue was whether S, in carrying out its stautory obligations under the Public Health Acts and the building regulations, owed any duty of care in tort to H. It was agreed that the failure of the units was caused by t
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38269 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 9668-1001

CA 13 April 1987. Appeal by plaintiffs (H) against decision of official referee, who decided a preliminary issue against H in favour of the fourth defendants, Salisbury District Council (S). The other three defendants were architects, building contractors and developers, however S is the sole respondent in this appeal. The action concerns the extent to which a local authority may be liable for failure adequately to discharge its statutory functions under the Public Health Acts and the building regulations. In 1979 H acquired the freehold of a site upon which 8 industrial warehouses were constructed and let on 25 year leases to various companies. Building regulation approval was obtained by S. Since H purchased the site, serious structural damage occurred to the units. At issue was whether S, in carrying out its stautory obligations under the Public Health Acts and the building regulations, owed any duty of care in tort to H. It was agreed that the failure of the units was caused by t