Business tenancy
Series: Estates Gazette ; [1999] EGCS 136(1)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: "VCS Carpark Management Ltd v Regional Railways North East Ltd". CA 16 November 1999. V was the tenant of land at a station carpark under a lease dated 1992. The lessor was British Railways Board (BRB), and the lease was transferred to R in 1995. R served notice terminted business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 in 1996. V contended that R's interest in the land had been purchased or created after the beginning of the five year period that ended with the termination of V's tenancy. Held: the transfer of the property by BRB to R was a transfer by R's holding company, therefore the transfer did not matter for the purposes of the five year rule. Also where the interest of the landlord was under successive leases, the earliesT of which was outside the five year period, the landlord did not fall foul of the five year rule.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB3547-28 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 103006-1001 |
"VCS Carpark Management Ltd v Regional Railways North East Ltd". CA 16 November 1999. V was the tenant of land at a station carpark under a lease dated 1992. The lessor was British Railways Board (BRB), and the lease was transferred to R in 1995. R served notice terminted business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 in 1996. V contended that R's interest in the land had been purchased or created after the beginning of the five year period that ended with the termination of V's tenancy. Held: the transfer of the property by BRB to R was a transfer by R's holding company, therefore the transfer did not matter for the purposes of the five year rule. Also where the interest of the landlord was under successive leases, the earliesT of which was outside the five year period, the landlord did not fall foul of the five year rule.