Latimer and another v Carney and another
Latimer and another v Carney and another
- 2006
- Estates Gazette (0650) 16 December 2006, 86-96(11) .
Discusses a case ([2006] EWCA Civ 1417) where appellant landlord appealed against a decision dismissing their action against their former tenants for breach of a repair covenant in a lease between the parties. The issues on appeal were whether the judge had been right to hold that the landlord had failed to prove the damage to the reversion, whether the landlord should be granted permission to amend their notice of appeal, whether the covenant to redecorate was a repair covenant to which the cap under s.18(1) applied, and whether the judge had been correct to order that the landlord alone should pay the costs of the third respondent in Part 20 proceedings between the tenants. "Held": expert evidence as to the diminution in value of the reversion was not necessary. The judge had correctly found that the court could infer the amount by which the reversion had diminished in value from the evidence as to the estimated cost of the repairs, but the judge had erred in holding that there was no sufficient evidence on the facts of the instant case.
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1927
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1927 S18(1)
JOYNER V WEEKS
RUXLEY ELECTRONICS AND CONSTRUCTION LTD V FORSYTH
HANSON V NEWMAN
CREWE SERVICES AND INVESTMENT V SILK
JONES V HERXHEIMER
SHORTLANDS INVESTMENTS LTD V CARGILL PLC
CULWORTH ESTATES LTD V SOCIETY OF LICENSED VITUALLERS
United Kingdom--
Discusses a case ([2006] EWCA Civ 1417) where appellant landlord appealed against a decision dismissing their action against their former tenants for breach of a repair covenant in a lease between the parties. The issues on appeal were whether the judge had been right to hold that the landlord had failed to prove the damage to the reversion, whether the landlord should be granted permission to amend their notice of appeal, whether the covenant to redecorate was a repair covenant to which the cap under s.18(1) applied, and whether the judge had been correct to order that the landlord alone should pay the costs of the third respondent in Part 20 proceedings between the tenants. "Held": expert evidence as to the diminution in value of the reversion was not necessary. The judge had correctly found that the court could infer the amount by which the reversion had diminished in value from the evidence as to the estimated cost of the repairs, but the judge had erred in holding that there was no sufficient evidence on the facts of the instant case.
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1927
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1927 S18(1)
JOYNER V WEEKS
RUXLEY ELECTRONICS AND CONSTRUCTION LTD V FORSYTH
HANSON V NEWMAN
CREWE SERVICES AND INVESTMENT V SILK
JONES V HERXHEIMER
SHORTLANDS INVESTMENTS LTD V CARGILL PLC
CULWORTH ESTATES LTD V SOCIETY OF LICENSED VITUALLERS
United Kingdom--