Search for: "Fidler v. Fidler " Results 1 - 20 of 42
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2010, 3:33 am by traceydennis
Fidler v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2010] EWHC 143 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 38 “Where the construction of an house without planning permission had been concealed by the erection of straw bales and a tarpaulin which had been left in place for over four years after the completion of the house, so that the local planning authority did not become aware of the house until after expiry of that four-year period, the totality of building… [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 1:49 am by sally
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and others [2010] EWHC 2430 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 244 “The definition of ‘private hire vehicle’ in s 80(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, with its express exclusion of hackney carriages, had to be read into the references to ‘private hire vehicle’ in sections 46(1)(d)(e); and the words ‘hackney carriage’, where they appeared in s 80(1), were not confined to a vehicle… [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 2:09 am by sally
Fidler v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Queen’s Bench Division “The erection and removal of straw bales, which concealed a new dwelling constructed without planning permission, formed part of the totality of building operations originally contemplated and intended to be carried out by the claimant. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 2:29 am by sally
Supreme Court HM Treasury v Ahmed & Ors [2010] UKSC 5 (04 February 2010) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Hancox & Anor v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 102 (04 February 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Perinpanathan, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 40 (04 February 2010) The Port of London Authority v Ashmore [2010] EWCA Civ 30 (04 February 2010) Republic of Argentina v NML Capital Ltd… [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 11:03 am
  The Court felt that this re-assessment was necessary in light of its recent decision in Fidler v. [read post]