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.
Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council [ 2004] EWHC 2873 (Ch) ) and [2005] 1 EGLR 128
A summary of my conclusions can be found in the final paragraph of this Decision. Page references are (unless otherwise stated) references to the Trial Bundle.
a. The description of the poster panels � 48-sheet and 16-sheet � was apparently a normal method of describing the panel size, based on the number of poster sized sheets then required to display the advertisement. As I understand it, a 48-sheet panel is 6.4 metres by 3.2 metres and a 16-sheet therefore one-third the size. These are accordingly substantial structures.
b. Much of the correspondence and other documents relating to the 1973 Agreement (and subsequent agreements) remains extant, and can be found at Tab I of the Trial Bundle. It is apparent from this material that, when the 1973 Agreement was made, none of the poster panels was in place.
d. The panels were erected on 15 th January 1974 and Paddy�s was notified of this on 6 th February 1974. I think it may be inferred from the documents that the fence was also constructed at this time.
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.