Talk:Tomlinson v Congleton BC

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cheshire C‑class Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

OK, this is a work in progress, so any comments on how the article can be improved, or any information with further sources would be greatly appreciated. Please stick them in here or add them into the article itself. Please bear in mind that it is a work in progress before we start highlighting issues! HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

In the current version, Mr. Tomlinson is referred to as the defendant in the "Litigation" section and as the claimant in the "Facts" and "Occupiers' Liability Act" sections. Is this accurate? KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, thank you! It's changed now, but I wouldn't be surprised to find another one of those in there! I think I've got all the facts in now, but any further assistance to make it a better article and to get it some attention would be very much appreciated.

My thanks once again, HJ Mitchell (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]