000			01449cab a2200253 4500
001			ABS56213
008			090401t1996 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u21951
041			_aeng
245			_aCamden LBC v Marshall
260			_c1996
350			_a0
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[1996] 1 WLR 1345-1350(4)
520			_aQBD 14 June 1996. M, owner of a house in multiple occupation, was served notice by C to carry out specified works to the property by 25 December 1993. When the works had still not been completed over fifteen months after the prescribed date, C laid an information against M on 19 June 1995, alleging failure to comply with a term of the notice within the specified time. The court below ruled that they had no jurisdiction to try the information as it had been laid outside the six-month time limit under the Magistrates` Courts Act 1980 s127. The question to be considered by the High Court was whether the offence was complete once the date for compliance had been reached, or continued to be committed not withstanding the expiry date. "Held" for the latter view; matter remitted to the justices.
650			_aCAMDEN LBC V MARSHALL
650			_aFAILURE TO COMPLY
650			_aHOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION
650			_aHOUSING ACT 1985 S352
650			_aMAGISTRATES COURTS ACT 1980 S127
650			_aREPAIR NOTICES
690			_aHOUSING-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c14709 _d14709