| 000 | 01112cam a2200205 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS67355 | ||
| 008 | 031201n2003 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u124541 | ||
| 245 | _aJudge each case on its individual merits | ||
| 260 | _c2003 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(0344) 1 November 2003, 166(1) |
||
| 520 | _aArgues that care should be taken not to rely too much on case law to lay down concrete rules on the application of law. Asks what should happen when cases contradict each other as illustrated by "Marazzi and another v Global Grange Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 3010 (Ch), Abs66997) and "Ivory Grove Ltd v Global Grange Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1407 (Ch), Abs66998). Each gave contradictory judgment upheld on appeal, as to whether works to upgrade hotel premises were sufficiently substantial to disentitle the tenants from having a new tenancy. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aMARAZZI AND ANOTHER V GLOBAL GRANGE LTD | ||
| 650 | _aIVORY GROVE LTD V GLOBAL GRANGE LTD | ||
| 650 | _aSTOKES V CAMBRIDGE | ||
| 650 | _aSINGER AND FRIEDLANDER LTD V JOHN D WOOD AND CO | ||
| 690 | _aLAW | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c73907 _d73907 |
||