Image from Google Jackets

Blawdziewicz v Diadon Establishment

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8835) 3 September 1988, 83-87(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ChD 15 March 1988. An application for appointment of a receiver for a block of flats by the treasurer of a residents association . There had been a history of disputes over repairs to the block between the residents and owners of the freehold. Planning permission had been obtained for construction of penthouse flats on top of the block which concerned the residents. In 1986, the freehold was acquired by the present defendants but matters did not significantly improve. In addition, new managing agents were appointed. The residents` association applied to the court for a receiver with regard to the repairs. The question which the judge had to decide was the balance of convenience. The residents` view was that the freeholders were interested in building the penthouses to make a profit and they did not have confidence in the landlords` ability to undertake the work. The defendants did not see the need for the appointment of a receiver as new managing agents had been appointed. They also
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39736 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 18685-1001

ChD 15 March 1988. An application for appointment of a receiver for a block of flats by the treasurer of a residents association . There had been a history of disputes over repairs to the block between the residents and owners of the freehold. Planning permission had been obtained for construction of penthouse flats on top of the block which concerned the residents. In 1986, the freehold was acquired by the present defendants but matters did not significantly improve. In addition, new managing agents were appointed. The residents` association applied to the court for a receiver with regard to the repairs. The question which the judge had to decide was the balance of convenience. The residents` view was that the freeholders were interested in building the penthouses to make a profit and they did not have confidence in the landlords` ability to undertake the work. The defendants did not see the need for the appointment of a receiver as new managing agents had been appointed. They also