Marazzi and another v Global Grange Ltd
Marazzi and another v Global Grange Ltd
- 2003
- Estates Gazette [2003] 34 EG 59-66(8) .
[2003] EWHC 3010 (Ch), 20 December 2002. Appellant landlord (G) appealed against a County Court decision concerning a dispute over G's refusal to grant a new tenancy to (M). G opposed the grant of a new tenancy in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f). The County Court decided that: firstly G's plans to upgrade the property from a two star to a four star hotel amounted to demolition and reconstruction but would not affect the substantial part of the premises; and secondly, removal of existing and the insertion of new partitions did not amount to demolition and the proposed work on utility services did not amount to structural work. The key issue concerned the character of the physical work involved. G's reliance on Ground f failed as when considering the true character of the physical word, it was found that the proposed works did not amount to the 'substantial work of construction'. County Court decision upheld. (See also Abs66828 and "Ivory Grove Ltd v Global Grange Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1409 (Ch), ABS66998)
IVORY GROVE LTD V GLOBAL GRANGE LTD
MARAZZI AND ANOTHER V GLOBAL GRANGE LTD
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S30(1)(F)
HOTELS
STRUCTURAL WORKS
DEMOLITION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND REFURBISHMENT
[2003] EWHC 3010 (Ch), 20 December 2002. Appellant landlord (G) appealed against a County Court decision concerning a dispute over G's refusal to grant a new tenancy to (M). G opposed the grant of a new tenancy in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f). The County Court decided that: firstly G's plans to upgrade the property from a two star to a four star hotel amounted to demolition and reconstruction but would not affect the substantial part of the premises; and secondly, removal of existing and the insertion of new partitions did not amount to demolition and the proposed work on utility services did not amount to structural work. The key issue concerned the character of the physical work involved. G's reliance on Ground f failed as when considering the true character of the physical word, it was found that the proposed works did not amount to the 'substantial work of construction'. County Court decision upheld. (See also Abs66828 and "Ivory Grove Ltd v Global Grange Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1409 (Ch), ABS66998)
IVORY GROVE LTD V GLOBAL GRANGE LTD
MARAZZI AND ANOTHER V GLOBAL GRANGE LTD
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S30(1)(F)
HOTELS
STRUCTURAL WORKS
DEMOLITION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND REFURBISHMENT