Image from Google Jackets

Lex Service plc v Johns

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 10 EG 67-71(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 22 August 1989. The plaintiff (L) was owner of two showrooms on opposite sides of an access road. The defendant (J) is assignee of the lease and uses the premises as car showrooms . The original term was for 12 months from December 1973 and thereafter on six months notice to expire on the usual quarter days. In April 1985 L served, or endeavoured to serve, two notices , terminating J`s tenancy at common law in December and the second under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 . The second notice showed that any application for a new tenancy would be refused as L wished to carry out substantial work on the premises. The notices were posted, by recorded delivery . According to the postman`s record the notices were received by someone whose signature is illegible; all requirements of recorded delivery of a document had been carried out. J claims these notices were never received and remained in occupation. L claimed trespass . J claimed that there were other premises behind his with the
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42374 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 36423-1001

CA 22 August 1989. The plaintiff (L) was owner of two showrooms on opposite sides of an access road. The defendant (J) is assignee of the lease and uses the premises as car showrooms . The original term was for 12 months from December 1973 and thereafter on six months notice to expire on the usual quarter days. In April 1985 L served, or endeavoured to serve, two notices , terminating J`s tenancy at common law in December and the second under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 . The second notice showed that any application for a new tenancy would be refused as L wished to carry out substantial work on the premises. The notices were posted, by recorded delivery . According to the postman`s record the notices were received by someone whose signature is illegible; all requirements of recorded delivery of a document had been carried out. J claims these notices were never received and remained in occupation. L claimed trespass . J claimed that there were other premises behind his with the