Image from Google Jackets

Plessey Co plc v Eagle Pension Fund Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 35 EG 52-75(2)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: (DET/1/1989) LT 17 October 1989 Appeal under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s37(5) from a VO decision concerning rateable value on the relevant date of part of a building in North London. The parties needed to know the value to ascertain compensation for disturbance to which (P) was entitled. The building had been damaged by fire in 1977 and reoccupied in 1978 following restoration work. P was former underlessee occupying three upper floors. VO determined that RV was £17.00, being an apportionment of RV £60.00 for the whole building. P argued that the holding for the purposes of the 1954 Act was not comprised in a fire-damaged building and that an assessment of RV £60.00 was unreal and could not be intended to relate to beneficial use. LT accepted the superior landlord`s, (E)`s argument that the RV should be ascertained in accordance with Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s37(5)(b) . At the relevant date, the holding was comprised in premises (the whole building) with respect to which a val
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43420 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 41628-1001

(DET/1/1989) LT 17 October 1989 Appeal under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s37(5) from a VO decision concerning rateable value on the relevant date of part of a building in North London. The parties needed to know the value to ascertain compensation for disturbance to which (P) was entitled. The building had been damaged by fire in 1977 and reoccupied in 1978 following restoration work. P was former underlessee occupying three upper floors. VO determined that RV was £17.00, being an apportionment of RV £60.00 for the whole building. P argued that the holding for the purposes of the 1954 Act was not comprised in a fire-damaged building and that an assessment of RV £60.00 was unreal and could not be intended to relate to beneficial use. LT accepted the superior landlord`s, (E)`s argument that the RV should be ascertained in accordance with Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s37(5)(b) . At the relevant date, the holding was comprised in premises (the whole building) with respect to which a val