Directors' Duties and Insolvent Companies

TLDR: In this article, it is argued that the decision delivered in that case is wrong in principle, insofar as its allocation of the burden of proof is concerned, and that it would be a far better strategy for a tree-feller to forsake, when appropriate, the statutory permission and rely upon the common law defence of necessity.

Abstract: some evidence to substantiate that defence.23 At the same time, section 60(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 does not imply that common law defences such as duress and necessity would not be available to a tree-feller. Hence, it would be a far better strategy for a tree-feller to forsake, when appropriate, the statutory permission and rely upon the common law defence of necessity. The fact that this choice between defences of identical substance may have such far-reaching implications reinforces the foregoing critique of Alath. It is not suggested that Alath's outcome necessarily amounts to a miscarriage of justice. Rather, it is submitted that insofar as its allocation of the burden of proof is concerned, the decision delivered in that case is wrong in principle. It is, nevertheless, good news for tree-lovers.