Talk:Allhusen v Whittell
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Dearl v Hall[edit]
Any particular reason that someone has copy-pasted a lot of text from the Dearle v Hall article into this article? I can't see any obvious synergy between the rules that justifies lumping the text in without some kind of comment or point of reference? --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)