Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Supreme Court Judgment: Hastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc [2016] UKSC 50

27th Jul 2016

Martin Bowdery QC acted for the Respondent in the matter of Hastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc [2016] UKSC 50.

In this matter Hastings Borough Council, used its power under s.78 of the Buildings Act to close a seaside pier, thus preventing access to leisure amenities owned by Stylus Sports Ltd to the public. Manolete Partners Plc was assigned Stylus’ claim against the Council for compensation. The principle issue in the matter centres on the meaning of ‘in default’ within the meaning of s. 106 of the Act.

To read the full judgement please click here.





Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register