Presidential Candidate Mimics A Sex Act
Society & Culture0 min ago
Repeal of the CROW Act
When the act was passed, we paid the necessary amount to our local Council who own the land. Now that the Crow Act has been repealed, our Council refuse to give our money back so we have the unfair situation of those who did not pay in the first instance are quids in compared with those of us who paid. How do we stand? How many other people affected by the act are out of pocket?
Answers
1 to 2 of 2
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bunnyface. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
OK, having checked it, I am now sure you ARE talking about Section 68 which was the bit about vehicular rights of access over Common Land.
Following on from a landmark legal case in 2005, the Law Lords overturned a ruling made in the earlier Hanning case by the Court of Appeal. The Law Lords judgement was that under certain circumstances a right of access can be granted for vehicules across Common Land by prescription (the 20 year rule). Therefore S68 became redundant, because the legal right to vehicular access that those owning land in the midst of Common Land required in most cases was possible without using S68 'rules' and scales of payment for acquiring a right under the Act.
That's life, I'm afraid. There is a clear distinction between the way that parliament legislates and the way that judges interpret that legislation, and the principal of case law, by which the determination of one case drives future decisions holds.
Following on from a landmark legal case in 2005, the Law Lords overturned a ruling made in the earlier Hanning case by the Court of Appeal. The Law Lords judgement was that under certain circumstances a right of access can be granted for vehicules across Common Land by prescription (the 20 year rule). Therefore S68 became redundant, because the legal right to vehicular access that those owning land in the midst of Common Land required in most cases was possible without using S68 'rules' and scales of payment for acquiring a right under the Act.
That's life, I'm afraid. There is a clear distinction between the way that parliament legislates and the way that judges interpret that legislation, and the principal of case law, by which the determination of one case drives future decisions holds.
1 to 2 of 2
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.