Image from Google Jackets

John Lewis Properties plc v Viscount Chelsea

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 34 EG 116-124(9)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: ChD 11 March 1993. In 1939 the premises in question became part of the Peter Jones department store in Sloane Square under a 999 year building lease. In 1969 it was listed as a Grade II listed building. By two notices served on the plaintiff (J) by the landlord (V), pursuant to Law of Property Act 1925 s146, J was required to remedy breaches of the building covenants. The relevant clause of the lease provided that J should, at their own cost, pull down the building then standing on the land and erect and build on the site buildings in accordance with plans which had been approved by V. J sought declarations as to the meaning and effect of this clause, the effect of supervening events on their enforceability and the waiver of forfeiture by acceptance of rent. J contended that the obligation in the lease was to demolish and build in conformity with plans already approved by V however no plans had been approved for the block in question. The covenants were therefore incapable of perform
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS49191 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 70296-1001

ChD 11 March 1993. In 1939 the premises in question became part of the Peter Jones department store in Sloane Square under a 999 year building lease. In 1969 it was listed as a Grade II listed building. By two notices served on the plaintiff (J) by the landlord (V), pursuant to Law of Property Act 1925 s146, J was required to remedy breaches of the building covenants. The relevant clause of the lease provided that J should, at their own cost, pull down the building then standing on the land and erect and build on the site buildings in accordance with plans which had been approved by V. J sought declarations as to the meaning and effect of this clause, the effect of supervening events on their enforceability and the waiver of forfeiture by acceptance of rent. J contended that the obligation in the lease was to demolish and build in conformity with plans already approved by V however no plans had been approved for the block in question. The covenants were therefore incapable of perform