Orme House Ltd v Suffolk County Council

Decision No. 382 REGISTERED HOMES TRIBUNAL This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be brought the attention of Registration and Inspection staff and legal advisors. ORME HOUSE LTD V SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL Tribunal sitting at Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, on Wednesday 21st July 1999. Before: Andrea RiversWes DowridgeGraham Harper This was a paper...

Source officielle

2 min de lecture 349 mots

Decision No. 382 REGISTERED HOMES TRIBUNAL This decision may be freely reproduced and distributed. It should be brought the attention of Registration and Inspection staff and legal advisors. ORME HOUSE LTD V SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL Tribunal sitting at Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, on Wednesday 21st July 1999. Before: Andrea RiversWes DowridgeGraham Harper This was a paper hearing. Neither party was present or represented. DECISION It is the unanimous decision of the tribunal that the Appellant's Appeal succeeds. On 25th January 1999 Suffolk County Council issued a Notice of Proposal to cancel the Appellant's registration in respect of the care home known as Windsor House Residential Care Home in Lowestoft. This notice was served on the Appellant. On 24th February 1999 the Appellant wrote to Suffolk County Council indicating their intention to appeal against this decision and on 9th March 1999 Suffolk County Council sent this Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal Secretariat. The Appeal was due to be heard on 1st and 2nd July 1999. However, on 14th June 1999 Suffolk County Council wrote to the Tribunal Secretariat to say that they had had discussions with Mr Charles Hill, the owner of Orme House Ltd., and a prospective purchaser, Mrs Patricia Ramsdale. Their letter went on to say that the company had now been transferred into the new ownership of Mrs Ramsdale. She had satisfied them of her fitness to run the company and had undertaken to ensure, amongst other things, that Mr Hill would play no part in the running of the company or the home. They had received a similar undertaking from Mr Hill. On that basis they no longer wished to offer any evidence in support of their Statement of Reasons of Cancellation. They therefore invited the Tribunal to allow the Appeal and vacate the hearing dates. It is therefore the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Appeal succeeds. Andrea RiversWes DowridgeGraham Harper


Open Justice Licence v2.0 (The National Archives). Republication avec attribution. Computational analysis necessite accord complementaire.

A propos de cette decision

Décisions similaires

Royaume-Uni

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights

Fiscal EN

Charles Small v The Information Commissioner & Anor

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00729 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0054 First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Heard by Cloud Video Platform Heard on: 23 April 2026 Decision given on: 20 May 2026 Before JUDGE HEALD MEMBER MURPHY MEMBER SCOTT Between CHARLES SMALL Appellant and (1) THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (2) THE GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY Respondents Representation: The Appellant appeared in person The...

Royaume-Uni

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights

Fiscal EN

Geoffrey Marney v The Information Commissioner & Anor

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00714 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0292 First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Information Rights Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 20 May 2026 Before TRIBUNAL JUDGE SOPhiE BUckley TRIBUNAL MEMBER MIRIAM SCOTT TRIBUNAL MEMBER SUSAN WOLF Between GEOFFREY MARNEY Appellant and (1) The Information commissioner (2) EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Decision: 1. The appeal is dismissed. REASONS...

Royaume-Uni

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights

Civil EN

Andrew White v The Information Commissioner

Neutral citation number: [2026] UKFTT 00739 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0274/GDPR First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 20 May 2026 Before JUDGE SANGER MEMBER COSGRAVE MEMBER TAYLOR Between ANDREW WHITE Applicant and THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondent Decision: The appeal is Dismissed REASONS Preliminary matters 1. This decision is to be provided to the...

Analyse stratégique offerte

Envoyez vos pièces. Recevez une stratégie.

Transmettez-nous les pièces de votre dossier. Maître Hassan KOHEN vous répond personnellement sous 24 heures avec une première analyse stratégique de votre situation.

  • Première analyse offerte et sans engagement
  • Réponse personnelle de l'avocat sous 24 heures
  • 100 % confidentiel, secret professionnel garanti
  • Jusqu'à 1 Go de pièces, dossiers et sous-dossiers acceptés

Cliquez ou glissez vos fichiers ici
Tous formats acceptes (PDF, Word, images, etc.)

Envoi en cours...

Vos donnees sont utilisees uniquement pour traiter votre demande. Politique de confidentialite.