Barth v Prichard and another
Barth v Prichard and another
- 1990
- Estates Gazette (1990) 20 EG 65-69(3) .
CA 27 July 1989. Appeal by landlords (P) from cc decision, holding, on the trial as a preliminary issue, that P were not entitled to oppose under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) , the applicant of the tenant (B) for a new tenancy of the first and fourth floors of the premises. P opposed the new tenancy on the grounds that they were intending to carry out substantial works of construction, which included resiting some toilets and a staircase; complete rewiring; provision of new toilets on the fourth floor; installation of central heating, stripping and retiling the roof; bricking of wall openings which had allowed access from an adjoining building and redecoration of the entire building. Cc held that most of the work carried out on B`s holding could not be regarded as works of construction at all; the blocking of the wall openings affected structure, but could not be regarded as substantial. CA upheld cc`s decision and appeal accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal to HL refused
BUSINESS TENANCIES
CASE LAW
IMPROVEMENTS
CA 27 July 1989. Appeal by landlords (P) from cc decision, holding, on the trial as a preliminary issue, that P were not entitled to oppose under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) , the applicant of the tenant (B) for a new tenancy of the first and fourth floors of the premises. P opposed the new tenancy on the grounds that they were intending to carry out substantial works of construction, which included resiting some toilets and a staircase; complete rewiring; provision of new toilets on the fourth floor; installation of central heating, stripping and retiling the roof; bricking of wall openings which had allowed access from an adjoining building and redecoration of the entire building. Cc held that most of the work carried out on B`s holding could not be regarded as works of construction at all; the blocking of the wall openings affected structure, but could not be regarded as substantial. CA upheld cc`s decision and appeal accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal to HL refused
BUSINESS TENANCIES
CASE LAW
IMPROVEMENTS