Image from Google Jackets

Barth v Prichard and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 20 EG 65-69(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 27 July 1989. Appeal by landlords (P) from cc decision, holding, on the trial as a preliminary issue, that P were not entitled to oppose under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) , the applicant of the tenant (B) for a new tenancy of the first and fourth floors of the premises. P opposed the new tenancy on the grounds that they were intending to carry out substantial works of construction, which included resiting some toilets and a staircase; complete rewiring; provision of new toilets on the fourth floor; installation of central heating, stripping and retiling the roof; bricking of wall openings which had allowed access from an adjoining building and redecoration of the entire building. Cc held that most of the work carried out on B`s holding could not be regarded as works of construction at all; the blocking of the wall openings affected structure, but could not be regarded as substantial. CA upheld cc`s decision and appeal accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal to HL refused
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42737 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 38643-1001

CA 27 July 1989. Appeal by landlords (P) from cc decision, holding, on the trial as a preliminary issue, that P were not entitled to oppose under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) , the applicant of the tenant (B) for a new tenancy of the first and fourth floors of the premises. P opposed the new tenancy on the grounds that they were intending to carry out substantial works of construction, which included resiting some toilets and a staircase; complete rewiring; provision of new toilets on the fourth floor; installation of central heating, stripping and retiling the roof; bricking of wall openings which had allowed access from an adjoining building and redecoration of the entire building. Cc held that most of the work carried out on B`s holding could not be regarded as works of construction at all; the blocking of the wall openings affected structure, but could not be regarded as substantial. CA upheld cc`s decision and appeal accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal to HL refused