Stevens and Cutting Ltd v Anderson
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 11 EG 70-78(5)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 July 1989. The respondent (A) was freeholder of stores and a lock up shop . Under a lease dated 11 November 1971 the stores were let to the appellant (S) for a term of 15 years and by a supplementary lease dated 9 July 1982 the shop was let for 5 years, each term expiring in April 1986. In June 1985 two directors of S requested a new tenancy under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s26 . A replied that the tenancy was held by the company and not the directors and indicated that any application would be opposed under s30. S reapplied and A refused on the same grounds. S applied to the county court on 13 August 1985 but proceedings were adjourned as negotiations continued. In December 1987 A realised that S had made the application to the court less than two months after service of the notice contrary to s29 of the Act. The application was therefore dismissed. On appeal S claimed that A had waived the irregularity by his conduct of negotiations after receipt of the defective applicatio| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42376 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 36435-1001 |
CA 19 July 1989. The respondent (A) was freeholder of stores and a lock up shop . Under a lease dated 11 November 1971 the stores were let to the appellant (S) for a term of 15 years and by a supplementary lease dated 9 July 1982 the shop was let for 5 years, each term expiring in April 1986. In June 1985 two directors of S requested a new tenancy under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s26 . A replied that the tenancy was held by the company and not the directors and indicated that any application would be opposed under s30. S reapplied and A refused on the same grounds. S applied to the county court on 13 August 1985 but proceedings were adjourned as negotiations continued. In December 1987 A realised that S had made the application to the court less than two months after service of the notice contrary to s29 of the Act. The application was therefore dismissed. On appeal S claimed that A had waived the irregularity by his conduct of negotiations after receipt of the defective applicatio