Greenwich LBC v Discreet Selling Estates Ltd
Greenwich LBC v Discreet Selling Estates Ltd
- 1991
- Property and Compensation Reports (1991) 61 PCR 405-436(17) .
CA 20 June 1990. The plaintiffs G were lessors and the defendants D head lessees of seven shops with flats above. The lease contained a repairing covenant with powers of re-entry in the event of a breach. From 1974 there was failure to repair. G served notice under Law of Property Act 1925 s146 with an interim schedule of dilapidations . D served a counter notice under Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 and G accordingly applied for leave of the court before proceeding to enforce the right of re-entry . Leave was granted 16 months later. G continued to demand and receive the rent. G issued summons for possession and obtained judgement in their favour. D claimed the interim schedule was not sufficient and invalidated the notice; also that the demand for and acceptance of rent was a waiver of the right of forfeiture . CA dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the notice had only listed specific defects which would give grounds for forfeiture and there had been no improvement in th
BREACH OF COVENANT
LANDLORD AND TENANT
LAW CASE
CA 20 June 1990. The plaintiffs G were lessors and the defendants D head lessees of seven shops with flats above. The lease contained a repairing covenant with powers of re-entry in the event of a breach. From 1974 there was failure to repair. G served notice under Law of Property Act 1925 s146 with an interim schedule of dilapidations . D served a counter notice under Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 and G accordingly applied for leave of the court before proceeding to enforce the right of re-entry . Leave was granted 16 months later. G continued to demand and receive the rent. G issued summons for possession and obtained judgement in their favour. D claimed the interim schedule was not sufficient and invalidated the notice; also that the demand for and acceptance of rent was a waiver of the right of forfeiture . CA dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the notice had only listed specific defects which would give grounds for forfeiture and there had been no improvement in th
BREACH OF COVENANT
LANDLORD AND TENANT
LAW CASE