000			01941cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS68463
008			041123n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128085
245			_aDacre Son and Hartley Ltd v North Yorkshire CC
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2004] 45 EG 124 (CS)
520			_aDivisional Court, 27 October 2004. Appeal by estate agents (D) by way of case stated against a magistrates' court decision convicting it of making false and misleading statements during the conduct of a proposed sale of a property, relating to a purported absence of damp in the property made at a time when it was aware that the property suffered from damp. Respondent council (NY) had laid a number of informations before the magistrates under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 s1(1) against D based on complaints from a prospective house purchaser (H). D submitted no charge to answer on the basis that the informations were insufficiently particularised within the meaning of the Magistrates Court Rules 1980 r 100, were therefore defective, could not be remedied by the evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to convict. D was convicted but the magistrates stated a case for appeal. "Held": appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to look at extraneous evidence when examining if the informations had been framed in such a way as to create real unfairness. There was no fatal defect in the informations. There was clear and strong evidence from H against D, which having been accepted, compelled the magistrates to convict D.
590			_aABS
650			_aMISLEADING STATEMENTS
650			_aTRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968
650			_aESTATE AGENTS
650			_aPROPERTY MISDESCRIPTIONS ACT 1991 S1(1)
650			_aMAGISTRATES' COURTS (HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS) RULES 1981 RULE 100
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
942			_n0
999			_c74619 _d74619