Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd
Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd
- 2001
- Estates Gazette [2001] 10 EG, 164-166(3) .
Central London CC 20 November 2000. Under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42, tenant (A) sought a new lease, and proposed a premium of £110,000. In a counternotice landlord (B) proposed a premium of £175,000. A contended B's counternotice was invalid, as it failed to admit A's claim, and claimed entitlement to an extended lease at the amount specified in his claim notice. "Held". Claim dismissed. A had been unreasonable in thinking B's counternotice did not admit the right to a new lease. The counternotice was valid for the purposes of s45(2)(a) of the 1993 Act.
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
EXTENDED LEASES
BURMAN V MOUNT COOK LAND LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
COUNTER NOTICE
Central London CC 20 November 2000. Under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42, tenant (A) sought a new lease, and proposed a premium of £110,000. In a counternotice landlord (B) proposed a premium of £175,000. A contended B's counternotice was invalid, as it failed to admit A's claim, and claimed entitlement to an extended lease at the amount specified in his claim notice. "Held". Claim dismissed. A had been unreasonable in thinking B's counternotice did not admit the right to a new lease. The counternotice was valid for the purposes of s45(2)(a) of the 1993 Act.
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
EXTENDED LEASES
BURMAN V MOUNT COOK LAND LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
COUNTER NOTICE