Cadogan and another v Morris
Cadogan and another v Morris
- 1999
- Estates Gazette Law Reports [1999] 04 EG 155-157(3) .
CA 4 November 1998. In September 1994, the respondant tenant (M) served a notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 claiming a new long lease in repect of a flat. The contractual term was due to expire in December 1994. The notice specified £100 as the suggested premium: a nominal figure which M had been advised was acceptable. A realistic figure was £100k-£300k. The county court decided that the nominal figure quoted by M did not invalidate the notice. The landlord appealed. "Held": The appeal was allowed and M`s initial notice was invalid, since under s42 of the 1993 Act the tenant is required to specify the premium which he proposes to pay.
CALCULATION
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
LONG LEASES
NOTICES
PREMIUMS
VISCOUNT CHELSEA V MORRIS
CA 4 November 1998. In September 1994, the respondant tenant (M) served a notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 claiming a new long lease in repect of a flat. The contractual term was due to expire in December 1994. The notice specified £100 as the suggested premium: a nominal figure which M had been advised was acceptable. A realistic figure was £100k-£300k. The county court decided that the nominal figure quoted by M did not invalidate the notice. The landlord appealed. "Held": The appeal was allowed and M`s initial notice was invalid, since under s42 of the 1993 Act the tenant is required to specify the premium which he proposes to pay.
CALCULATION
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
LONG LEASES
NOTICES
PREMIUMS
VISCOUNT CHELSEA V MORRIS