Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Daniel Crowley (instructed by Plexus Law for the Claimant) G. M. Bebb (instructed by P. C. B. Robertson for the Defendant) ____________________
That letter is stamped as having been received on 4 th September 1992. A copy appears to have been received by the defendant�s arboricultural officer on 17 th September. There is no evidence of any reply to the letter of 2 nd September.
The last-mentioned reports are not in evidence. On 3 rd November 1992 the loss adjusters again wrote to the defendant�s solicitor�s department concerning the property as follows:-
That letter is stamped as having been received on 9 th November. No evidence has been given about the telephone call mentioned in the letter. There is no evidence whether the proposed meeting took place.
That meeting appears to have taken place on 13 th January 1993. Originally, the defendant intended to dig a trial hole, but it changed its mind. There were put before me some internal memoranda of the defendant as relating to the property. It was not possible to identify the writers or their departments. Those memoranda read as follows. The first is dated 7 th January 1993:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.