Billingsgate and Smithfield markets sought through the Corporation to prevent Covent Garden market allowing the sale of fish and meat.
Held: Parliament could not have intended to allow Covent Garden to carry on an activity in competition with the Smithfield or Billingsgate markets. The grant of a right to hold a market in particular commodities (eg. horticultural produce) imported an implied prohibition on holding a market in any other commodity (eg. meat or fish). Permitting the face-to-face sale of fish or meat at the Nine Elms site was outside the scope of CGMA’s statutory powers and was not an activity that could be brought within those powers by a consent under the section 18(1)(f) proviso.
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1765, [2005] 1 WLR 1286
Links:
Statutes:
Covent Garden Market Act 1961 18(1)(f)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Corporation of London, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others HL 21-Jun-2006
The old markets of the City of London enjoyed a common law right to prevent the opening of other markets within seven miles. Covent Garden had granted leases for the sale of products other than vegetables and fruit and wanted to allow the face to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.220522
