Capocci v Goble
Capocci v Goble
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 284(6355) 10 October 1987, 230-240(3) .
CA 23 June 1987. Appeal by plaintiff tenant (C) against cc decision in favour of landlord (G) who relied on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) in refusing to renew a business tenancy on the ground that she needed possession of the premises for development. At issue was whether G`s intention to carry out the development of 10 residential flats had been established. To substantiate such an intention G had to satisfy the court that she had attended to the following: 1) planning permission , 2) finance, and 3) agreement with either a developer or building contractor. The evidence showed that outline planning permission had been granted for the proposed development subject to two conditions, which were unlikely to create any problems, and that the bank had confirmed its willingness to fund the project. C`s main challenge was that no agreement had been reached between G and a developer or building contractor. A company known as Maylarch Properties Ltd had approached G expressing an
NEW TENANCY
CA 23 June 1987. Appeal by plaintiff tenant (C) against cc decision in favour of landlord (G) who relied on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) in refusing to renew a business tenancy on the ground that she needed possession of the premises for development. At issue was whether G`s intention to carry out the development of 10 residential flats had been established. To substantiate such an intention G had to satisfy the court that she had attended to the following: 1) planning permission , 2) finance, and 3) agreement with either a developer or building contractor. The evidence showed that outline planning permission had been granted for the proposed development subject to two conditions, which were unlikely to create any problems, and that the bank had confirmed its willingness to fund the project. C`s main challenge was that no agreement had been reached between G and a developer or building contractor. A company known as Maylarch Properties Ltd had approached G expressing an
NEW TENANCY