Hagee (London) Ltd v Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd
Hagee (London) Ltd v Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd
- 1992
- Estates Gazette (1992) 06 EG 122-126(4) .
ChD 19 July 1991. The plaintiff H was tenant of three shops under a lease dated 6 November 1984 for a term of 25 years. The defendant, C was the grantor of the lease and immediate landlord. In March 1989 C gained planning permission to redevelop an area of which the premises formed the eastern edge. Two of the buildings were Grade II listed buildings. H agreed in the lease not to make structural alterations or additions, not to cut main walls or timbers and not to contravene listed building law. The lease also contained a covenant for reentry on breach of covenant. In 1989 it was decided to replace the airconditioning system. No leave was sought from C or any other bodies such as English Heritage or local authorities. The works were noted and reported to C who decided to do nothing, but C did stop accepting the rent. It is believed that C, who needed the property for redevelopment hoped that a breach of covenant would occur and a forfeiture be possible. On 20 December 1989 a notice w
BREACH OF COVENANT
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S146
LISTED BUILDINGS
ChD 19 July 1991. The plaintiff H was tenant of three shops under a lease dated 6 November 1984 for a term of 25 years. The defendant, C was the grantor of the lease and immediate landlord. In March 1989 C gained planning permission to redevelop an area of which the premises formed the eastern edge. Two of the buildings were Grade II listed buildings. H agreed in the lease not to make structural alterations or additions, not to cut main walls or timbers and not to contravene listed building law. The lease also contained a covenant for reentry on breach of covenant. In 1989 it was decided to replace the airconditioning system. No leave was sought from C or any other bodies such as English Heritage or local authorities. The works were noted and reported to C who decided to do nothing, but C did stop accepting the rent. It is believed that C, who needed the property for redevelopment hoped that a breach of covenant would occur and a forfeiture be possible. On 20 December 1989 a notice w
BREACH OF COVENANT
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S146
LISTED BUILDINGS