Orlando Investments Ltd v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia
Orlando Investments Ltd v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 43 EG 175-182(5) .
CA 19 April 1989 Appeal by Orlando (O) from a ChD decision dismissing O`s originating summons seeking a declaration that consent to the assignment of their underlease had been unreasonably refused by their landlords Grosvenor Estate (G). There had been admitted and extensive breach es of the tenant`s repairing covenants in respect of which a s146 notice had been served. There had previously been lengthy negotiations for a scheme of improvements and alterations to the premises. Negotiations having come to nothing and s146 notice not complied with, G stipulated that the proposed assignee and guarantor should carry out the scheme of repairs and references be produced showing that there was enough money to complete the scheme. O issued proceedings and ChD held that G had not unreasonably withheld its consent. On appeal, CA upheld ChD`s decision, stating that G`s refusal to consent to an assignment where there were substantial dilapidations and the assignee refused to agree to a specific
PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
CA 19 April 1989 Appeal by Orlando (O) from a ChD decision dismissing O`s originating summons seeking a declaration that consent to the assignment of their underlease had been unreasonably refused by their landlords Grosvenor Estate (G). There had been admitted and extensive breach es of the tenant`s repairing covenants in respect of which a s146 notice had been served. There had previously been lengthy negotiations for a scheme of improvements and alterations to the premises. Negotiations having come to nothing and s146 notice not complied with, G stipulated that the proposed assignee and guarantor should carry out the scheme of repairs and references be produced showing that there was enough money to complete the scheme. O issued proceedings and ChD held that G had not unreasonably withheld its consent. On appeal, CA upheld ChD`s decision, stating that G`s refusal to consent to an assignment where there were substantial dilapidations and the assignee refused to agree to a specific
PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES