Cromwell Developments Ltd v Godfrey and others: Same v Wright and others
Cromwell Developments Ltd v Godfrey and others: Same v Wright and others
- 1998
- Estates Gazette [1998] 33 EG 72-76(5) .
CA 8 April 1998. The defendants were granted two leases of adjoining office suites: 32A and 32B. In 1984 both leases were assigned to CBL. CBL were dissolved in 1987 and the leases became vested in the Crown; the plaintiff landlords (C) were unaware of these events. The leases were disclaimed in 1993. CBTS, who were controlled by the same person who controlled CBL, were tenants of unit 28 in the same building and paid the rent of 32A and 32B from about 1989 until September 1990. Thereafter arrears began to arise and a liquidator was appointed. C`s claims for arrears in the two consolidated actions, one against the original tenants and the other against the defendants as being liable under an indemnity, were dismissed by the county court on the ground that the leases had terminated either by forfeiture or re-entry. C appealed. "Held" C did not manifest an intention to forfeit the leases; their conduct was not equivocal and, there was no constructive re-entry. Appeal allowed.
DISCLAIMER OF LEASE
FORFEITURE
HINDCASTLE LTD V BARBARA ATTENBOROUGH ASSOCIATES LTD
LANDLORD AND TENANT
LIABILITY
LONDON & COUNTY (A&D) LTD V WILFRED SPORTSMAN LTD
ORIGINAL TENANT LIABILITY
RE-ENTRY
RENT ARREARS
CA 8 April 1998. The defendants were granted two leases of adjoining office suites: 32A and 32B. In 1984 both leases were assigned to CBL. CBL were dissolved in 1987 and the leases became vested in the Crown; the plaintiff landlords (C) were unaware of these events. The leases were disclaimed in 1993. CBTS, who were controlled by the same person who controlled CBL, were tenants of unit 28 in the same building and paid the rent of 32A and 32B from about 1989 until September 1990. Thereafter arrears began to arise and a liquidator was appointed. C`s claims for arrears in the two consolidated actions, one against the original tenants and the other against the defendants as being liable under an indemnity, were dismissed by the county court on the ground that the leases had terminated either by forfeiture or re-entry. C appealed. "Held" C did not manifest an intention to forfeit the leases; their conduct was not equivocal and, there was no constructive re-entry. Appeal allowed.
DISCLAIMER OF LEASE
FORFEITURE
HINDCASTLE LTD V BARBARA ATTENBOROUGH ASSOCIATES LTD
LANDLORD AND TENANT
LIABILITY
LONDON & COUNTY (A&D) LTD V WILFRED SPORTSMAN LTD
ORIGINAL TENANT LIABILITY
RE-ENTRY
RENT ARREARS