Postel Properties Ltd and another v Boots the Chemist
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1996] 41 EG 164-168(5) (12/10/96)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: QBD 25 July 1996. Boots, representing the tenants of the Milton Keynes Shopping Centre, argued that works to roof and windows of centre were improvements and not repairs. Boots argued that the cost of the works was not therefore recoverable from tenants via service charges. Held, that except for priming of roof troughs the works were repairs even if the specification was higher than original.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS56035 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 20575-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
QBD 25 July 1996. Boots, representing the tenants of the Milton Keynes Shopping Centre, argued that works to roof and windows of centre were improvements and not repairs. Boots argued that the cost of the works was not therefore recoverable from tenants via service charges. Held, that except for priming of roof troughs the works were repairs even if the specification was higher than original.