Report comment

I'm not a lawyer, so obviously can't make much of this, but it seems to be clear that the claimant believed (top of article) that the defendant owned the hotel but that (bottom of article) it did not. There's no mention of how complicated the issue of ownership was but, if the case depended upon it, why was it, apparently, not decided upon before all these other complicated matters were addressed? Was the claimant ill-advised?