- USA: DOT fines Virgin America for failing to make safety videos accessible to passengers with hearing impairments;
- Australia: hotel not liable for security guard;
- ECJ: the special VAT scheme for travel agents is not limited to sales of travel services to travellers;
- ECJ: Delayed rail passsengers are entitled to a partial price refund - even in cases of force majeure;
- German Supreme Court: "bird strike" constitutes "extraordinary cicumstances";
- Germany: Supreme Court reconfirms compensation for missed connecting flight;
- Canada: CTA orders Air Canada and Porter Airlines to revise domestic tariff provisions;
- USA: “dirtiest hotel in America” not defamatory;
- UK: Virgin Atlantic looses dispute over flat bed airline seat patent;
- USA: New Jersey judge dismisses hotel waitresses' gender discrimination claim;
- Committee on Transport and Tourism of the European Parliament publishes Draft Report on the Commission's proposal for a new Air Passenger Rights Regulation;
- Canada: CTA decides on overbooking - and finds European compensation system unreasonable;
- U.S. Court: American citizens have a constitutionally protected right to travel by air;
- USA: DOT fines ticket agents for code-share disclosure violations;
- Egypt: tourism minister sends message to travel industry via YouTube;
- U.S. travel industry worried about anti-gay law in Russia;
- USA: DOT releases guidance for Internet flight-search tools;
- German court requests ECJ preliminary ruling with regard to passport data;
- UK: OFT consults on proposed hotel booking commitments;
- IFTTA Law Review 2-2013 available online;
- Canada: Federal Court of Appeal decides on exclusivity of Montreal Convention liabiliy rules;
- USA: equal rights for same-sex spouses in visa applications;
- German Supreme Court asks ECJ for interpretation of article 12 of Reg. 261/2004;
- Recent EU Implementing Regulations in aviation matters;
- Austrian Supreme Court: "bad weather" not enough to release air carrier from compensation for cancellation;
- Italy: OTAs succeed against Ryanair over website access;
- New Package Travel Directive;
- Austrian Supreme Court: ticket office must disclose commission;
- USA: DOT fines Delta for violating Denied Boarding Rules;
- German court asks ECJ to clarify offsetting rules in Air Passenger Rights Regulation;
- Tourist’s rights and duties in Belo Horizonte, Brazil;
- USA: DOT fines ticket agent for violating code-share disclosure rules;
- Austria: Supreme Court decides on travel insurance;
- USA: Cruise industry adopts passenger bill of rights;
- California: Delta wins in mobile app case;
- UK: Civil Aviation Authority and Office of Fair Trading warn travel industry not to mislead consumers;
- IFTTA Law Review 1-2013 available online;
- German Supreme Court: air passengers entitled to compensation for missed connecting flight;
- CJEU: "Sturgeon" judgement did not infringe the principle of separation of powers;
- Germany: Supreme court decides on malperformance of Greenland cruise;
- New German reference for ECJ preliminary ruling regarding Air Passenger Rights Regulation;
- Swiss Ferderal Court: yacht charter including crew does not constitute a travel package;
- Report on new tourism legislation in China;
- USA: Metropolitan Museum of Art sued over admissions fee policy;
- German court: lessor of holiday apartment must include costs of final cleaning into the advertised price;
- USA: DOT fines Alitalia for deceptive practices;
- EU: MEPs welcome Commission proposal on air passenger rights;
- UK to implement new Air Passenger Duty;
- USA: Appeals Court Revives Wheelchair Lawsuit vs. United Airlines;
"Sodalem esse societatis quae dedicetur ad exercitatio legis ut produceat iter peregrationemque"
Showing posts with label Hotel Premises. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hotel Premises. Show all posts
Thursday, October 03, 2013
IFTTA News Update
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Scotland: Hotel Premises
Bass Taverns Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 2000 SLT 775
An enforcement notice was served on the owners of a hotel alleging that they were in breach of planning consent. They had had permission to have a beer garden as an ‘incidental use’ of the hotel premises. They extended the use of the beer garden by increasing the number of tables. The enforcement notice alleged that they had thereby breached their planning permission, causing a detriment to the amenity of local residents due to the increased noise and nuisance. They successfully appealed against the notice.
The Court of Session held that, as the beer garden had existed for some years, it was covered by existing planning permission. The fact that they had increased its use did not stop it being ‘incidental’ to the main hotel premises.
An enforcement notice was served on the owners of a hotel alleging that they were in breach of planning consent. They had had permission to have a beer garden as an ‘incidental use’ of the hotel premises. They extended the use of the beer garden by increasing the number of tables. The enforcement notice alleged that they had thereby breached their planning permission, causing a detriment to the amenity of local residents due to the increased noise and nuisance. They successfully appealed against the notice.
The Court of Session held that, as the beer garden had existed for some years, it was covered by existing planning permission. The fact that they had increased its use did not stop it being ‘incidental’ to the main hotel premises.
Labels:
Hotel Premises,
Planning Permission.,
Scotland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)