Please do not disturb
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0325) 21 June 2003, 140(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: Considers "Marazzi and another v Global Grange Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 3010 (Ch), Abs...) which illustrates the point that appeal courts rarely interfere with a decision which requires the exercise of a discretion or the evaluation of evidence even where it might have reached a different conclusion. It is generally accepted that a trial judge's view of whether a landlord's proposed works satisfy s30(1)(f) should not normally be disturbed. The HC upheld the county court decision that the proposed transformation from a two star to a luxury four-star hotel did not fulfil the requirements of s30(1)(f) as no demolition or reconstruction of the premises as required.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66828 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 122795-1001 |
Considers "Marazzi and another v Global Grange Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 3010 (Ch), Abs...) which illustrates the point that appeal courts rarely interfere with a decision which requires the exercise of a discretion or the evaluation of evidence even where it might have reached a different conclusion. It is generally accepted that a trial judge's view of whether a landlord's proposed works satisfy s30(1)(f) should not normally be disturbed. The HC upheld the county court decision that the proposed transformation from a two star to a luxury four-star hotel did not fulfil the requirements of s30(1)(f) as no demolition or reconstruction of the premises as required.