Image from Google Jackets

Pearson and another v Alyo

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 25 EG 69-72(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 7 November 1989. On 13 February 1981 the respondent A and his wife were registered at HM Land Registry as joint proprietors with title absolute to a hotel . A had paid for the property but added his wife to the proprietorship due to certain advantages if he were to predecease her. She always looked on the property as A`s and never intended to take any part in its management. By a leasing contract dated March 1984 A leased the property to P until March 1987. After termination of the tenancy P`s tenancy continued under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part 2. By a notice addressed to P, solicitors acting on A`s behalf purported to give notice to quit under section 25 in the form prescribed by Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part 2 (Notices) Regulations 1983 and implied that any application for a new tenancy would be opposed. Correspondence only named A as landlord. P served a counternotice . The court held that A`s notice was valid. P appealed. CA held the notice to be invalid as it should
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42921 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 39593-1001

CA 7 November 1989. On 13 February 1981 the respondent A and his wife were registered at HM Land Registry as joint proprietors with title absolute to a hotel . A had paid for the property but added his wife to the proprietorship due to certain advantages if he were to predecease her. She always looked on the property as A`s and never intended to take any part in its management. By a leasing contract dated March 1984 A leased the property to P until March 1987. After termination of the tenancy P`s tenancy continued under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part 2. By a notice addressed to P, solicitors acting on A`s behalf purported to give notice to quit under section 25 in the form prescribed by Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part 2 (Notices) Regulations 1983 and implied that any application for a new tenancy would be opposed. Correspondence only named A as landlord. P served a counternotice . The court held that A`s notice was valid. P appealed. CA held the notice to be invalid as it should