Ricci v Masons (a firm)
Ricci v Masons (a firm)
- 1993
- Estates Gazette (1993) 38 EG 154-159(6) .
QBD 21 April 1993. By a lease dated March 1979 the plaintiff, R, was granted a term of 10 years on restaurant premises. The lease had a break clause providing for six months notice to terminate if the premises were required for redevelopment. In April 1988 a notice was served under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 terminating the tenancy but notifying R that it would not oppose the grant of a new tenancy. The defendant solicitors, M, failed to apply for this new tenancy on R`s behalf but admitted liability. Terms for a new tenancy were agreed for a five year period with another redevelopment clause but excluding the protection of the 1954 Act. R claimed that his intention was to sell any term he would have been granted. He had hoped to get 20 years with some prospect of renegotiating the break clause and wished this to be used to assess damages. It was held that R was likely to have been granted a 10 year lease under the Act with a six month redevelopment break clause. R was entitled
BREAK CLAUSE
DAMAGES
EXTENSION OF LEASE
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S25
NEGLIGENCE
TERMINATION OF TENANCY
QBD 21 April 1993. By a lease dated March 1979 the plaintiff, R, was granted a term of 10 years on restaurant premises. The lease had a break clause providing for six months notice to terminate if the premises were required for redevelopment. In April 1988 a notice was served under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 terminating the tenancy but notifying R that it would not oppose the grant of a new tenancy. The defendant solicitors, M, failed to apply for this new tenancy on R`s behalf but admitted liability. Terms for a new tenancy were agreed for a five year period with another redevelopment clause but excluding the protection of the 1954 Act. R claimed that his intention was to sell any term he would have been granted. He had hoped to get 20 years with some prospect of renegotiating the break clause and wished this to be used to assess damages. It was held that R was likely to have been granted a 10 year lease under the Act with a six month redevelopment break clause. R was entitled
BREAK CLAUSE
DAMAGES
EXTENSION OF LEASE
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S25
NEGLIGENCE
TERMINATION OF TENANCY