Lead us not into error
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0211) 16 March 2002, 151(1)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: The final article in a four part series discussing the law surrounding the validity of statutory notices and the inconsistency of CA rulings following "Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd". Examines the recent CA case "Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall" which queried the validity of a landlord's notice containing errors served under the Housing Act 1988 s20. Concludes that for errors in non-mandatory requirements, the "Manai" reasonable recipient test is likely to be appropriate.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB3811-24 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 117173-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
The final article in a four part series discussing the law surrounding the validity of statutory notices and the inconsistency of CA rulings following "Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd". Examines the recent CA case "Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall" which queried the validity of a landlord's notice containing errors served under the Housing Act 1988 s20. Concludes that for errors in non-mandatory requirements, the "Manai" reasonable recipient test is likely to be appropriate.