Duty to return tenant`s deposit does not concern the land
Language: English Series: Times ; 27/11/86 p41 (2)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: In Hua Chiao Commercial Bank Ltd v Chiaphua Industries Ltd (formerly known as Chiap Hua Clocks and Watches Ltd) ,Privy Council 25 November 1986,it was held that the obligation of a landlord under a clause in a lease to return at the expiration of the term a security deposit paid by the tenant was not a obligation which touched and concerned the land,and therefore an assignee of the reversion was not obliged to repay money which it had never received.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | WB2247-32 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 40179-1001 |
In Hua Chiao Commercial Bank Ltd v Chiaphua Industries Ltd (formerly known as Chiap Hua Clocks and Watches Ltd) ,Privy Council 25 November 1986,it was held that the obligation of a landlord under a clause in a lease to return at the expiration of the term a security deposit paid by the tenant was not a obligation which touched and concerned the land,and therefore an assignee of the reversion was not obliged to repay money which it had never received.