Groveside Homes Ltd v Elmbridge BC
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6360) 14 November 1987, 940(1)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 10 July 1987 Appeal against a conviction under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s 102 (1) for uprooting a tree which was subject to a tree preservation order . The tree was on land owned by the appellant company which was being developed by a contractor. Despite being warned of the existence of the preservation order and told not to touch or damage the tree, the contractor uprooted the tree. The appellants were prosecuted,convicted and fined. They submitted to the magistrates that they were not liable as the offence had been committed by an independent contractor. On appeal the respondent council accepted that this submission was correct. QBD held that in these circumstances, where an independent contractor had been expressly told not to touch the tree, no other conclusion was possible. Appeal allowed and the conviction quashed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38453 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10716-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
QBD 10 July 1987 Appeal against a conviction under Town and Country Planning Act 1971 s 102 (1) for uprooting a tree which was subject to a tree preservation order . The tree was on land owned by the appellant company which was being developed by a contractor. Despite being warned of the existence of the preservation order and told not to touch or damage the tree, the contractor uprooted the tree. The appellants were prosecuted,convicted and fined. They submitted to the magistrates that they were not liable as the offence had been committed by an independent contractor. On appeal the respondent council accepted that this submission was correct. QBD held that in these circumstances, where an independent contractor had been expressly told not to touch the tree, no other conclusion was possible. Appeal allowed and the conviction quashed.