Essex Plan v Broadminster Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8843) 29 October 1988, 84-86(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ChD 14 March 1988 Motion by the plaintiffs, Essex Plan Ltd (E), which by consent was treated as the trial of the action. E had issued an originating summons which sought a determination of the question whether they were tenants or licensees in respect of a shop unit in Basildon. Present motion was for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Broadminster Ltd (B), from retaking possession of the unit pending hearing of the summons. E had taken the shop for the purpose of a market , but did not wish to commit themselves to a long lease until after a trial period. E asked for and were given a licence agreement for one year under which they were also given the option to "ask for an extension of the occupancy". At the end of the year E had not exercised their option and had been given notice to quit. However, the parties had negotiated a new agreement, but this was never completed. B then acquired the original licensor`s interest and were now seeking to evict E who now wishe| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39990 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 20480-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
ChD 14 March 1988 Motion by the plaintiffs, Essex Plan Ltd (E), which by consent was treated as the trial of the action. E had issued an originating summons which sought a determination of the question whether they were tenants or licensees in respect of a shop unit in Basildon. Present motion was for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Broadminster Ltd (B), from retaking possession of the unit pending hearing of the summons. E had taken the shop for the purpose of a market , but did not wish to commit themselves to a long lease until after a trial period. E asked for and were given a licence agreement for one year under which they were also given the option to "ask for an extension of the occupancy". At the end of the year E had not exercised their option and had been given notice to quit. However, the parties had negotiated a new agreement, but this was never completed. B then acquired the original licensor`s interest and were now seeking to evict E who now wishe