Image from Google Jackets

London Hilton Jewellers Ltd v International Hotels Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 20 EG 69-74(4)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 7 February 1990 Appeal by tenants (LHJ) from a cc decision in favour of landlords (H), on a preliminary issue as to the validity of H`s objections under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(g) to the application by LHJ for a new tenancy of a jewellers shop . H`s objection to the application was based on their stated intention to carry out extensive works on the ground floor of the Hilton Hotel , for which they required the premises occupied by LHJ. The objection was upheld by the cc. CA considered two stated grounds of appeal by LHJ. The first ground was that the finding as to H`s intention was against the weight of the evidence. CA held that an undertaking given by H`s counsel at the conclusion of the trial, in the same terms as a resolution by H`s directors the same day, to the effect that H would go ahead with alterations affecting LHJ`s premises without delay "compelled fixity of intention". The second ground for appeal was based on the existence of similar proceedings by H con
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42740 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 38658-1001

CA 7 February 1990 Appeal by tenants (LHJ) from a cc decision in favour of landlords (H), on a preliminary issue as to the validity of H`s objections under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s30(1)(g) to the application by LHJ for a new tenancy of a jewellers shop . H`s objection to the application was based on their stated intention to carry out extensive works on the ground floor of the Hilton Hotel , for which they required the premises occupied by LHJ. The objection was upheld by the cc. CA considered two stated grounds of appeal by LHJ. The first ground was that the finding as to H`s intention was against the weight of the evidence. CA held that an undertaking given by H`s counsel at the conclusion of the trial, in the same terms as a resolution by H`s directors the same day, to the effect that H would go ahead with alterations affecting LHJ`s premises without delay "compelled fixity of intention". The second ground for appeal was based on the existence of similar proceedings by H con