Barking and Dagenham v Christodoulou

Barking and Dagenham v Christodoulou

The Magistrates erred by applying the wrong test; under section 224, the respondent is deemed responsible for advertisements publicising his business unless he proves lack of knowledge or consent. The evidence did not discharge this burden, and there was a case to answer.

Parties
Claimant: Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; Respondent: Savass Christodoulou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal, Remittal for Rehearing
Outcome
appeal allowed, case remitted for rehearing by a fresh bench, no order for costs
Legal Topics
Control of Advertisements, Reverse Burden of Proof, Liability for Fly Posting, Town and Country Planning Act Enforcement
Administrative Law Planning Law Criminal Law Control of Advertisements Reverse Burden of Proof Liability for Fly Posting Town and Country Planning Act Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Claimant

Savass Christodoulou

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal, Remittal for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient evidence was adduced to show respondent's knowledge or consent to display of advertisements
  2. 2 Interpretation of section 224(3)-(5) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regarding deemed responsibility and reverse burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrates erred by applying the wrong test; under section 224, the respondent is deemed responsible for advertisements publicising his business unless he proves lack of knowledge or consent. The evidence did not discharge this burden, and there was a case to answer.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, case remitted for rehearing by a fresh bench, no order for costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Case remitted for rehearing by a fresh bench