Rhodes and Another v Allied Dunbar (Pension Services) Ltd and Another
Rhodes and Another v Allied Dunbar (Pension Services) Ltd and Another
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 19 EG 70-77(4) .
CA 9 November 1988. Appeal by superior landlords (A) from decision holding that notices served by A requiring payment of rent by undertenants (U) to A were ineffective. The rent related to a freehold factory in Croydon. A claimed under the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 to be entitled to receive direct from U arrears due from the intermediate tenants (I). Simultaneously, receivers (R) appointed by a bank which had advanced money to I executed distress warrants to obtain payment of rent due from U to I. At issue was whether R was entitled to rents from U. If the notices served by A were effective R was not entitled to recover the rents from U, the distress was unlawful and the money should be handed over to A; if they were ineffective the distraints were lawful and R was entitled to retain the money. CA examined the provisions of the 1908 Act and decided that A were fully entitled to receive and give a discharge for U`s rent. R contended that s6 notices were not effective against
CA 9 November 1988. Appeal by superior landlords (A) from decision holding that notices served by A requiring payment of rent by undertenants (U) to A were ineffective. The rent related to a freehold factory in Croydon. A claimed under the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 to be entitled to receive direct from U arrears due from the intermediate tenants (I). Simultaneously, receivers (R) appointed by a bank which had advanced money to I executed distress warrants to obtain payment of rent due from U to I. At issue was whether R was entitled to rents from U. If the notices served by A were effective R was not entitled to recover the rents from U, the distress was unlawful and the money should be handed over to A; if they were ineffective the distraints were lawful and R was entitled to retain the money. CA examined the provisions of the 1908 Act and decided that A were fully entitled to receive and give a discharge for U`s rent. R contended that s6 notices were not effective against