Jervis v Harris
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1996) 1 All ER 303-311(9)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: CA 9 November 1995. Plaintiff landlord J seeks to enforce repairing covenants in underlease. Concerns the construction of defendant tenant`s (H) repair covenant contained in cl2(7) of underlease, the enforceability of cl2(10) by J without obtaining leave of the court under Leasehold Property (Repair) Act 1938 s1 and whether monies due by way of reimbursement to landlords are recoverable as penalties. Held that an action by a landlord to recover the cost of repairs is a claim in debt rather than a claim for damages. Therefore J did not require leave under s1(3) of the 1938 Act to bring action. Penalty claim did not apply. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS54372 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10015-1001 |
CA 9 November 1995. Plaintiff landlord J seeks to enforce repairing covenants in underlease. Concerns the construction of defendant tenant`s (H) repair covenant contained in cl2(7) of underlease, the enforceability of cl2(10) by J without obtaining leave of the court under Leasehold Property (Repair) Act 1938 s1 and whether monies due by way of reimbursement to landlords are recoverable as penalties. Held that an action by a landlord to recover the cost of repairs is a claim in debt rather than a claim for damages. Therefore J did not require leave under s1(3) of the 1938 Act to bring action. Penalty claim did not apply. Appeal dismissed.