Barth v Prichard and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 20 EG 65-69(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 27 July 1989. Appeal by landlords (P) from cc decision, holding, on the trial as a preliminary issue, that P were not entitled to oppose under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) , the applicant of the tenant (B) for a new tenancy of the first and fourth floors of the premises. P opposed the new tenancy on the grounds that they were intending to carry out substantial works of construction, which included resiting some toilets and a staircase; complete rewiring; provision of new toilets on the fourth floor; installation of central heating, stripping and retiling the roof; bricking of wall openings which had allowed access from an adjoining building and redecoration of the entire building. Cc held that most of the work carried out on B`s holding could not be regarded as works of construction at all; the blocking of the wall openings affected structure, but could not be regarded as substantial. CA upheld cc`s decision and appeal accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal to HL refused| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42737 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 38643-1001 |
CA 27 July 1989. Appeal by landlords (P) from cc decision, holding, on the trial as a preliminary issue, that P were not entitled to oppose under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(f) , the applicant of the tenant (B) for a new tenancy of the first and fourth floors of the premises. P opposed the new tenancy on the grounds that they were intending to carry out substantial works of construction, which included resiting some toilets and a staircase; complete rewiring; provision of new toilets on the fourth floor; installation of central heating, stripping and retiling the roof; bricking of wall openings which had allowed access from an adjoining building and redecoration of the entire building. Cc held that most of the work carried out on B`s holding could not be regarded as works of construction at all; the blocking of the wall openings affected structure, but could not be regarded as substantial. CA upheld cc`s decision and appeal accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal to HL refused