Thrasyvolou v SoS for the Environment and Hackney LBC
Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 138(6342) 5 February 1988, 29-30(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 28 January 1988. Appeal by plaintiff (T) from a decision upholding the decision of a planning inspector who determined certain enforcement notice appeals in favour of the council (H). H had issued notices in 1982 to restrain T`s use of certain premises as hotels or hostels . T appealed and the notices were quashed by an inspector. In 1985 H served notices which stated that T was in breach of planning control by changing the use of the premises to a "hostel for homeless families". T appealed against the notices, but a different inspector upheld them. T`s subsequent appeal to QBD was dismissed. On appeal to CA the question of issue estoppel was raised. T argued that 1) when enforcement notices were served in 1985, decisions on some of the properties had already been made through the 1982 enforcement proceedings in favour of T; 2) in 1985 the circumstances were no different from those of 1982; 3) because of the doctrine of issue estoppel, H was prevented from contending in the 1985 p| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38825 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 12578-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 28 January 1988. Appeal by plaintiff (T) from a decision upholding the decision of a planning inspector who determined certain enforcement notice appeals in favour of the council (H). H had issued notices in 1982 to restrain T`s use of certain premises as hotels or hostels . T appealed and the notices were quashed by an inspector. In 1985 H served notices which stated that T was in breach of planning control by changing the use of the premises to a "hostel for homeless families". T appealed against the notices, but a different inspector upheld them. T`s subsequent appeal to QBD was dismissed. On appeal to CA the question of issue estoppel was raised. T argued that 1) when enforcement notices were served in 1985, decisions on some of the properties had already been made through the 1982 enforcement proceedings in favour of T; 2) in 1985 the circumstances were no different from those of 1982; 3) because of the doctrine of issue estoppel, H was prevented from contending in the 1985 p