000			01799cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS65971
008			021003n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u119979
245			_aSouth Bucks DC v Flanagan and another
260			_c2002
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[2002] 1 WLR 2601-2609(9)
490			_aJournal of Planning and Environment Law _v[2002] JPL 1465-1473(8)
520			_aCA 16 May 2002. The claimant council (SB) employed a solicitor (S) in private practice to prosecute breaches of two enforcement notices which required the removal of items from land owned by the first defendant (F) and occupied by the second defendant (J). S was authorised to discontinue the prosecution on certain conditions and agreed to withdraw the prosecutions and the enforcement notices at a hearing before the magistrates' court. SB subsequently applied for an injunction to force compliance with the notices. SB's appeal against the judgment that it was estopped from seeking injunctive relief was allowed. J appealed on the ground that the representation made by S to withdraw the enforcement notices gave rise to a legitimate representation that no further proceedings under these notices would be initiated. "Held" appeal dismissed. It was no part of the usual authority of a solicitor, appointed by a local planning authority to prosecute for a breach of an enforcement notice, to agree to a withdrawal of the underlying notice itself.
590			_aABS
650			_aSOUTH BUCKS DC V FLANAGAN AND ANOTHER
650			_aENFORCEMENT NOTICES
650			_aESTOPPEL
650			_aOSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY
650			_aTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S215
650			_aPLANNING
650			_aINJUNCTIVE RELIEF
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
942			_n0
999			_c71294 _d71294