Culworth Estates Ltd v Society of Licensed Victuallers
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 39 EG 132-139(4)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 February 1991. The lease, dated 27 September 1965 was for 21 years. The defendants, C, were assignees of the term and the plaintiffs, S, were assignees of the reversion. The lease was a full repairing lease and at expiration of the term the premises were not in a state of repair required by these covenants. The parties agreed that the cost of carrying out the repairs requires by the lease was £175,000; in total £227,875, the extra being made up of 12 % for professional fees in respect of the repairs and loss of rent during repair work. C appealed asking that the whole award be set aside on the basis that S had not suffered any damage or that there should be a retrial. C contended that S had claimed that the premises might be converted into a supermarket thus invalidating the need for repairs. If it can be shown that the premises, in whatever state of repair, would at or shortly after termination of the tenancy, be pulled down or, such structural alteration made as would make th| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS45285 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 52074-1001 |
CA 15 February 1991. The lease, dated 27 September 1965 was for 21 years. The defendants, C, were assignees of the term and the plaintiffs, S, were assignees of the reversion. The lease was a full repairing lease and at expiration of the term the premises were not in a state of repair required by these covenants. The parties agreed that the cost of carrying out the repairs requires by the lease was £175,000; in total £227,875, the extra being made up of 12 % for professional fees in respect of the repairs and loss of rent during repair work. C appealed asking that the whole award be set aside on the basis that S had not suffered any damage or that there should be a retrial. C contended that S had claimed that the premises might be converted into a supermarket thus invalidating the need for repairs. If it can be shown that the premises, in whatever state of repair, would at or shortly after termination of the tenancy, be pulled down or, such structural alteration made as would make th