Image from Google Jackets

Rennie and another v Proma Ltd and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 17 EG 69-77(5)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 6 December 1989 Appeal by J Bynge (B) (Proma Ltd taking no part in the appeal) from a cc decision in favour of Mr and Mrs Rennie (R), on their application under Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s20 to acquire the freehold of a cottage held for a term of 99 years from December 1981. Difficulties had arisen from a transfer in 1985 which brought the cottage within the provisions and restrictions of a family settlement and trust for sale. The result was that the vesting of the title to the freehold in R required the appointment of an additional trustee of the trust for sale and the consent of B who refused to co-operate in the fulfillment of either condition. Cc held that by virtue of Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s23(1) and Law of Property Act 1925 s30 , the objections of B could be overcome and made declarations in favour of R. On appeal by B, CA upheld cc decision but on different grounds. The transfer in 1985 was a relevant agreement that related to the tenancy for the purposes of s23 of 196
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42742 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 38666-1001

CA 6 December 1989 Appeal by J Bynge (B) (Proma Ltd taking no part in the appeal) from a cc decision in favour of Mr and Mrs Rennie (R), on their application under Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s20 to acquire the freehold of a cottage held for a term of 99 years from December 1981. Difficulties had arisen from a transfer in 1985 which brought the cottage within the provisions and restrictions of a family settlement and trust for sale. The result was that the vesting of the title to the freehold in R required the appointment of an additional trustee of the trust for sale and the consent of B who refused to co-operate in the fulfillment of either condition. Cc held that by virtue of Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s23(1) and Law of Property Act 1925 s30 , the objections of B could be overcome and made declarations in favour of R. On appeal by B, CA upheld cc decision but on different grounds. The transfer in 1985 was a relevant agreement that related to the tenancy for the purposes of s23 of 196