Pinel v Housing Cttee. [1970] JJ 1545 (01 October 1970)

Auction prices do not inherently justify higher housing consent prices; Committee is entitled to control prices and indicate maximum acceptable price.

Citation: [1970] JJ 1545
Parties: Applicant: Pinel; Respondent: Housing Committee
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 01 October 1970
Procedural Posture: Housing Application / Judgment
Outcome: Application for housing consent rejected
Legal Topics: Housing Consent, Undue Increase in Price, Auction Price Vs Private Treaty

Housing Law Housing Consent Undue Increase in Price Auction Price Vs Private Treaty

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Pinel

Applicant

Housing Committee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Housing Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether auction price carries more weight than private treaty price in housing consent applications
2 Whether competitive auction forces justify Committee's price control
3 Legitimacy of Committee indicating maximum acceptable price

Ratio Decidendi

Auction prices do not inherently justify higher housing consent prices; Committee is entitled to control prices and indicate maximum acceptable price.

Court Disposition

Application for housing consent rejected

Orders

Committee may indicate highest price to which it would be prepared to consent