The Local Board had been refused an order for recovery of a proportion of the expenses of sewering a property on the basis that the road was maintainable by the public at large. Years later the Board sought to recover paving expenses. It was held that the earlier decision was beyond the magistrates’ jurisdiction, and no estoppel could be mainatined against the board.
Citations:
(1881) 6 QBD 300
Cited by:
Cited – Penn-Texas Corporation v Murat Anstalt (No 2) CA 1964
The court considered a claim for an issue estoppel arising from a foreign judgment: ‘In my opinion a previous judgment between the same parties is only conclusive on matters which are conclusive and necessary to the decision. It is not conclusive on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel, Magistrates
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188236
