劳伦斯诉芬虎案:妨害法的争议与澄清

Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2695304

Kee Yang Low

{"title":"劳伦斯诉芬虎案:妨害法的争议与澄清","authors":"Kee Yang Low","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2695304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The law of nuisance is an area which is fraught with difficulties. In Lawrence v Fen Tigers [2014] 2 WLR 433, the UK Supreme Court dealt with several of these issues, in particular the relevance of planning permission and when damages should be granted in lieu of an injunction. This comment examines the decision and its implications.","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lawrence v Fen Tigers: Controversies and Clarifications in the Law of Nuisance\",\"authors\":\"Kee Yang Low\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2695304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The law of nuisance is an area which is fraught with difficulties. In Lawrence v Fen Tigers [2014] 2 WLR 433, the UK Supreme Court dealt with several of these issues, in particular the relevance of planning permission and when damages should be granted in lieu of an injunction. This comment examines the decision and its implications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"149 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2695304\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2695304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

妨害法是一个充满困难的领域。在Lawrence诉Fen Tigers [2014] 2 WLR 433案中，英国最高法院处理了其中的几个问题，特别是规划许可的相关性以及何时应授予损害赔偿金而不是禁令。这篇评论探讨了该决定及其影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Lawrence v Fen Tigers: Controversies and Clarifications in the Law of Nuisance

The law of nuisance is an area which is fraught with difficulties. In Lawrence v Fen Tigers [2014] 2 WLR 433, the UK Supreme Court dealt with several of these issues, in particular the relevance of planning permission and when damages should be granted in lieu of an injunction. This comment examines the decision and its implications.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊最新文献

Observing Online Courts: Lessons from the Pandemic Discovery as Regulation Section 89 of the CPC: ADR and Business Disputes. Brief for Samuel L. Bray as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Merck & Co. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Adversarial Persuasion with Cross-Examination