000			01535cab a2200277 4500
001			ABS45681
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u54470
041			_aeng
100			_aPowell-Smith, V.
245			_aRunning foul of building control
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aContract Journal _v362(5854/5) 2 January 1992, 7(1)
520			_aTwo cases have recently been reported where the lack of remedial work to a building was the cause of dispute. Two issues arose in the first, where a breach in the Building Regulations was not initially rectified, and a late attempt to do so was prevented by the owner. It was decided that the contravention could not be held against the builder if the remedy was obstructed by the owner. But, lack of intent could be alleged once a part of the building was purported to be finished; action did not have to wait for practical completion. In the second, argument arose over deliberate or fraudulent concealment conducted 20 years previously. A time bar had arisen which could be waived if concealment could be proved. However, hard evidence had to be forthcoming to win the case.
650			_aANTINO V EPPING FOREST DC
650			_aBUILDING CONTROL _96222
650			_aCASE LAW
650			_aFRAUD
650			_aLEICESTER WHOLESALE FRUIT MARKET LTD V GRUNDY
650			_aLIMITATION ACT 1980 S32(1)
650			_aPRACTICAL COMPLETION
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c33388 _d33388