Haines v Florensa
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 09 EG 70-79(5)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 7 June 1989. F held a flat on a lease from H who occupied the garden flat in the same block. The lease contained a covenant against alterations which read "The Lessee will not without the written consent of the Lessor first being obtained make any alteration in or addition to the height sides front back wall timbers or elevations of the premises." F wished to convert the loft of the property to increase her living space which involved raising the roof and installing a room and ensuite bathroom. H withheld consent. F claimed this was unreasonably withheld and that consent was not necessary as the conversion was an improvement under Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s19 . It was held and the appeal upheld that although the loft was to intrude into the airspace above the house this comprised part of the premises demised and therefore did not infringe an easement .| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42382 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 36472-1001 |
CA 7 June 1989. F held a flat on a lease from H who occupied the garden flat in the same block. The lease contained a covenant against alterations which read "The Lessee will not without the written consent of the Lessor first being obtained make any alteration in or addition to the height sides front back wall timbers or elevations of the premises." F wished to convert the loft of the property to increase her living space which involved raising the roof and installing a room and ensuite bathroom. H withheld consent. F claimed this was unreasonably withheld and that consent was not necessary as the conversion was an improvement under Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s19 . It was held and the appeal upheld that although the loft was to intrude into the airspace above the house this comprised part of the premises demised and therefore did not infringe an easement .