Longman v Viscount Chelsea and Others
Longman v Viscount Chelsea and Others
- 1989
- Property and Compensation Reports (1989) 58 PCR 189-200(12) .
CA 10 March 1989 Appeal by Mrs Longman (L) from ChD decision dismissing her claim against Viscount Chelsea (C) for specific performance of an agreement to grant an extension of the existing term of a lease of a property which agreement expressed to be subject to the completion of the lease. In 1983 negotiations had been entered into for the surrender of K`s lease and its replacement by a new one. It was agreed that a premium of £20,000 should be paid and there would also be a ground rent of £200 subject to review. However, due to certain complications, it was not until 1986 that C`s solicitors were in possession of the new lease and a revised offer was made at a premium of £160,000, plus a ground rent of 2,000 per annum. This offer was not acceptable to L who sought an order compelling the grant of the new lease in accordance with the 1983 offer. ChD dismissed the claim and on appeal, CA held that an agreement subject to completion of a lease was not completed until formal exchange o
CA 10 March 1989 Appeal by Mrs Longman (L) from ChD decision dismissing her claim against Viscount Chelsea (C) for specific performance of an agreement to grant an extension of the existing term of a lease of a property which agreement expressed to be subject to the completion of the lease. In 1983 negotiations had been entered into for the surrender of K`s lease and its replacement by a new one. It was agreed that a premium of £20,000 should be paid and there would also be a ground rent of £200 subject to review. However, due to certain complications, it was not until 1986 that C`s solicitors were in possession of the new lease and a revised offer was made at a premium of £160,000, plus a ground rent of 2,000 per annum. This offer was not acceptable to L who sought an order compelling the grant of the new lease in accordance with the 1983 offer. ChD dismissed the claim and on appeal, CA held that an agreement subject to completion of a lease was not completed until formal exchange o