Sellers LJ considered the application of court rules requiring notices to be given within a certain number of days: ‘Does the court need in each statute requiring notices to be given to a court – of which there are so many – an express stipulation about days when a court to which an application or notice is to be made or given is closed, or can it not be be said that the courts are able and are intended to administer the provisions strictly but with regard to te functioning and avaiability of the court?’ and ‘It is said that the application could have been meade some days before. That is true, but that would have deprived te tenant of some part of the time which the statute has prescribed. I cannot find any such differentiation between one tenant and another or between one lease and another depending on te hdifferentces of their date in relation to te time of th efnctioning of the appropriate court. In my view th eproper construction of the statute requires that all tenants and all leases should be placed on the same basis as to time.
Sellers, Davies LJJ
[1967] 1 All ER 307, [1967] 2 QB 299
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd QBD 1-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendants. He had died on 5 September 1967 but the writ was not issued until Monday 7 September 1970. The applicable limitation period was 3 years, which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.231060
