London and Associated Investment Trust PLC v Calow and Another
London and Associated Investment Trust PLC v Calow and Another
- 1986
- Estates Gazette 280(6313) 6 December 1986,1252-1257(5) .
ChD 22 May 1986. Underlessees(P) sought against defendants(D) payments for rent and service charges for premises in the City of London, part occupied by D. Question was whether D were liable under an oral contract to pay rent and indemnify P against service charges in relation to the underlease,or whether D were tenants,rather than licensees. Also whether the principles established in Street v Mountford ,(Abstract 34734) could be applied. The facts in respect of occupation were complex and confusing. The underlease to P was granted,but proposed subunderleases to D and other parties were never executed, proposed assignment of a part was never executed and proposed orders under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s38(4) were never obtained. Arrangements broke down and the dispute arose as to D`s liability for rent and service charges for a part year after they left the premises. It was held there was no evidence to support a contract of indemnity. D had become tenants with the three essential
BUSINESS TENANCIES
ChD 22 May 1986. Underlessees(P) sought against defendants(D) payments for rent and service charges for premises in the City of London, part occupied by D. Question was whether D were liable under an oral contract to pay rent and indemnify P against service charges in relation to the underlease,or whether D were tenants,rather than licensees. Also whether the principles established in Street v Mountford ,(Abstract 34734) could be applied. The facts in respect of occupation were complex and confusing. The underlease to P was granted,but proposed subunderleases to D and other parties were never executed, proposed assignment of a part was never executed and proposed orders under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s38(4) were never obtained. Arrangements broke down and the dispute arose as to D`s liability for rent and service charges for a part year after they left the premises. It was held there was no evidence to support a contract of indemnity. D had become tenants with the three essential
BUSINESS TENANCIES