Judgments - Majorstake Limited (Respondents) v Curtis (Appellant)

(back to preceding text)

48.  On the question whether the proposed development could constitute works on a substantial part of the premises, I do not think it possible to form an opinion if the question has not been resolved of the extent of the building which can constitute the premises for the purposes of section 47. I therefore do not consider it profitable to speculate on the question whether the work on flats 77 and 74 would qualify if the whole of Block B were to be regarded as the relevant premises.

49.  For the reasons which I have given I would concur with your Lordships in allowing the appeal.

 
Previous

Lords  Parliament  Commons  Search  Contact Us  Index 


© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 6 February 2008