R v Licensing Authority for Goods Vehicles for the Metropolitan Traffic Area, ex parte B. E. Barrett Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1949
CourtDivisional Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
7 cases
  • Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 January 1971
    ...committee to go back on the stated reasons. Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, put a similar point clearly in Rex v. Licensing Authority for Goods Vehicles for Metropolitan Traffic Area (1949 2 K. B.) at page 22: "When the language of a tribunal is clear and there is no ambiguity, it would be qui......
  • R v Deputy Chief Constable of the North Wales Constabulary, ex parte Hughes
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 July 1990
    ...affidavits and should look only at the letter of 5th January because of a principle said to be found in the decisions in R. v. Licensing Authority, ex parte Barrett [1949] 2 K.B. 17, Div. Crt. Ward v. Shell Mex [1951] 2 All E.R. 904, Stretfield J; and R. v. Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex par......
  • R (Richards and Another) v Pembrokeshire County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 February 2005
    ...it is open to the Council, as a matter of principle, to rely upon their witness statements. In R Licensing Authority for Goods Vehicles for the Metropolitan Traffic Area ex p B E Barrett Limited [1949] 2 KB 17, a goods vehicle licensing authority refused to grant an application made under ......
  • Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 28 January 1971
    ...committee to go back on the stated reasons. Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, put a similar point clearly in Rex v. Licensing Authority for Goods Vehicles for Metropolitan Traffic Area (1949 2 K. B.) at page 22: "When the language of a tribunal is clear and there is no ambiguity, it would be qui......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT