Auckland Harbour Board v The King and change of position (James Douglas, 16 Mar 2000)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	James Douglas
Date:	Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:37:51 +1000
Re:	Auckland Harbour Board v The King and change of position

----------
From: James Douglas
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:36:01 +1000
To: Charles Mitchell
Subject: Re: RDG: Auckland Harbour Board v The King and change of position

Thanks very much for the reference to the case. I shall read it with interest. I had found an inconclusive discussion in an English unreported decision called R v Secretary of State for the Environment; ex parte London Borough of Camden (Schiemann J, 17 February 1995) but this sounds as if it carries the debate a bit further. The authorities here are opposed to estoppel as a defence and, I think by analogy, to change of position also.

--
Kind regards,

James Douglas

Tel: +617 3236 2723
Fax: +617 3236 2730

From: Charles Mitchell
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:03:40 +0000
To: James Douglas
Subject: Re: RDG: Auckland Harbour Board v The King and change of position

Hinckley and Bosworth BC v Shaw

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.