| 000 | 00975cab a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | WB3107-38 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u3415 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aJones and another v SoS for Wales | ||
| 260 | _c1995 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette Case Summaries _v(1995) EGCS 14(1) (11/2/95) |
||
| 520 | _a"Jones and another v SoS for Wales" CA 1 February 1995. According to the appellants the inspector was biased because after the inquiry he had discussed a document connected with the case with a council representative. The appellants wanted the inspector to be cross-examined. By a majority the appeal was allowed as the accounts of both parties concerning the inspector`s movements were quite different. | ||
| 650 | _aBIAS | ||
| 650 | _aCROSS-EXAMINATION | ||
| 650 | _aINSPECTOR | ||
| 650 | _aPLANNING INQUIRIES | ||
| 690 | _aPLANNING LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c2096 _d2096 |
||