| 000 | 01153cam a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | WB3811-24 | ||
| 008 | 020319n2002 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u117173 | ||
| 245 | _aLead us not into error | ||
| 260 | _c2002 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(0211) 16 March 2002, 151(1) |
||
| 520 | _aThe 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. | ||
| 590 | _aWB | ||
| 650 | _aEVIDENT ERROR | ||
| 650 | _aINVALID NOTICES | ||
| 650 | _aSTATUTORY REQUIREMENTS | ||
| 650 | _aMANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK | ||
| 650 | _aRAVENSEFT PROPERTIES LTD V HALL | ||
| 650 | _aSTATUTORY NOTICES | ||
| 690 | _aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c69811 _d69811 |
||