|Judgments - Majorstake Limited (Respondents) v Curtis (Appellant)
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.
|© Parliamentary copyright 2008||Prepared 6 February 2008|