City Offices (Regent Street) Ltd v Europa Acceptance Group plc
City Offices (Regent Street) Ltd v Europa Acceptance Group plc
- 1990
- Estates Gazette (1990) 05 EG 71-75(3) .
CA 13 April 1989. Europa Acceptance Group plc (E), held an underlease of a self contained office suite on the second floor of Regent Arcade House, London W1. The lease was granted by the owners of the head leasehold interest, C. C served notice on E purporting to exercise rights under the break clause. Validity of the notice was disputed by E. C sought summary judgement and succeeded. E appealed, the sole issue proposed by C constituted " redevelopment " or reconstruction of the demised premises. The demise of the second floor office suite to E included the plaster coverings of party walls and structural walls and the coverings of floors and ceilings, but excluded the load bearing structure of the building. This tenancy was described as an `eggshell`. C wanted to carry out building work costing over £20m but, retaining the steel framework. E submitted that the judge was in error in holding that the proposed works constituted `reconstruction`. As far as E was concerned there was no st
CA 13 April 1989. Europa Acceptance Group plc (E), held an underlease of a self contained office suite on the second floor of Regent Arcade House, London W1. The lease was granted by the owners of the head leasehold interest, C. C served notice on E purporting to exercise rights under the break clause. Validity of the notice was disputed by E. C sought summary judgement and succeeded. E appealed, the sole issue proposed by C constituted " redevelopment " or reconstruction of the demised premises. The demise of the second floor office suite to E included the plaster coverings of party walls and structural walls and the coverings of floors and ceilings, but excluded the load bearing structure of the building. This tenancy was described as an `eggshell`. C wanted to carry out building work costing over £20m but, retaining the steel framework. E submitted that the judge was in error in holding that the proposed works constituted `reconstruction`. As far as E was concerned there was no st