Hurstfell Ltd v Leicester Square Property Co Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8837) 17 September 1988, 109-110(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 May 1988. An appeal by the landlord company (L) from a decision in the county court whereby the judge granted a new tenancy to the tenant company (H) despite their continuous delay s in paying rent . In the county court, the judge was satisfied with explanations given by H as to why payments were late, and that there would not be a recurrence in the situation if a new lease was granted. L appealed. L submitted that the judge had erred in his findings, but in the CA the L`s appeal was dismissed; the judge considered it was "eminently a question for decision by the judge as the fact-finding tribunal". It was not possible to say that there was not the evidence on which the judge was entitled to conclude as he did. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39732 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 18662-1001 |
CA 16 May 1988. An appeal by the landlord company (L) from a decision in the county court whereby the judge granted a new tenancy to the tenant company (H) despite their continuous delay s in paying rent . In the county court, the judge was satisfied with explanations given by H as to why payments were late, and that there would not be a recurrence in the situation if a new lease was granted. L appealed. L submitted that the judge had erred in his findings, but in the CA the L`s appeal was dismissed; the judge considered it was "eminently a question for decision by the judge as the fact-finding tribunal". It was not possible to say that there was not the evidence on which the judge was entitled to conclude as he did. Appeal dismissed.