No escaping clarity
Murdoch, S.
No escaping clarity - 2003 - Estates Gazette (0302) 11 January 2003, 102(1) .
Discusses recent cases concerning Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 notice requirements. In "St Ermin's Property Co v Tingay" (Chd Abs66081), agreeing with an earlier judgment "Viscount Chelsea and another v Hirshorn" (County Court Abs58748) it was decided that the need for a s42 notice to be signed personally by the tenant was inescapable and in this case the notice signed by the tenant's son under a power of attorney was invalid. In "Wellcome Trust Ltd v Bellhurst Ltd" (CA [2002] 32 EG 90) the CA was asked to rule on the validity of a s42 notice served by the respondent (B) which held the relevant underlease on trust for the occupier. The notice had not been served on a particular tenant nor on the intermediate landlord. The tenant it was claimed, although a party to the underlease, was not a third party for the purposes of the Act. CA agreed that the statute did not cover a third party who has no rights and obligations under the law. Further, where Sched 11 para 2 of the 1993 Act applies, the validity of the notice is not affected.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S41
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 SCHED 11 PARA 4
ST ERMINS PROPERTY CO V TINGAY
WELLCOME TRUST LTD V BELLHURST LTD
VISCOUNT CHELSEA AND ANOTHER V HIRSHORN
ENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT 1985 S3(2)
No escaping clarity - 2003 - Estates Gazette (0302) 11 January 2003, 102(1) .
Discusses recent cases concerning Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 notice requirements. In "St Ermin's Property Co v Tingay" (Chd Abs66081), agreeing with an earlier judgment "Viscount Chelsea and another v Hirshorn" (County Court Abs58748) it was decided that the need for a s42 notice to be signed personally by the tenant was inescapable and in this case the notice signed by the tenant's son under a power of attorney was invalid. In "Wellcome Trust Ltd v Bellhurst Ltd" (CA [2002] 32 EG 90) the CA was asked to rule on the validity of a s42 notice served by the respondent (B) which held the relevant underlease on trust for the occupier. The notice had not been served on a particular tenant nor on the intermediate landlord. The tenant it was claimed, although a party to the underlease, was not a third party for the purposes of the Act. CA agreed that the statute did not cover a third party who has no rights and obligations under the law. Further, where Sched 11 para 2 of the 1993 Act applies, the validity of the notice is not affected.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S41
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 SCHED 11 PARA 4
ST ERMINS PROPERTY CO V TINGAY
WELLCOME TRUST LTD V BELLHURST LTD
VISCOUNT CHELSEA AND ANOTHER V HIRSHORN
ENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT 1985 S3(2)