Image from Google Jackets

Stevens and Cutting Ltd v Anderson

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 11 EG 70-78(5)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 July 1989. The respondent (A) was freeholder of stores and a lock up shop . Under a lease dated 11 November 1971 the stores were let to the appellant (S) for a term of 15 years and by a supplementary lease dated 9 July 1982 the shop was let for 5 years, each term expiring in April 1986. In June 1985 two directors of S requested a new tenancy under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s26 . A replied that the tenancy was held by the company and not the directors and indicated that any application would be opposed under s30. S reapplied and A refused on the same grounds. S applied to the county court on 13 August 1985 but proceedings were adjourned as negotiations continued. In December 1987 A realised that S had made the application to the court less than two months after service of the notice contrary to s29 of the Act. The application was therefore dismissed. On appeal S claimed that A had waived the irregularity by his conduct of negotiations after receipt of the defective applicatio
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42376 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 36435-1001

CA 19 July 1989. The respondent (A) was freeholder of stores and a lock up shop . Under a lease dated 11 November 1971 the stores were let to the appellant (S) for a term of 15 years and by a supplementary lease dated 9 July 1982 the shop was let for 5 years, each term expiring in April 1986. In June 1985 two directors of S requested a new tenancy under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s26 . A replied that the tenancy was held by the company and not the directors and indicated that any application would be opposed under s30. S reapplied and A refused on the same grounds. S applied to the county court on 13 August 1985 but proceedings were adjourned as negotiations continued. In December 1987 A realised that S had made the application to the court less than two months after service of the notice contrary to s29 of the Act. The application was therefore dismissed. On appeal S claimed that A had waived the irregularity by his conduct of negotiations after receipt of the defective applicatio