Bridgers and Hamptons Residential v Stanford
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1992) 63 PCR 18-30(12)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 24 April 1991. Appellant X was landlord and respondents Y tenants of a business tenancy in respect of which X gave notice of termination under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25. It was in the form prescribed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (Notices) Regulations 1983. Y claimed this was invalid as it did not name them as tenants, it related to the whole of the premises whereas they only occupied the ground and first floors and it did not comply with law as it only required them to notify the landlord in writing within two months if they were not willing to give up possession. At the original hearing the first two parts were held in X`s favour and the third in Y`s. On appeal it was held that the notice was valid. X must have known that the notice only applied to their part of the building and that the nature of the counter notice was not relevant.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS45931 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 55955-1001 |
CA 24 April 1991. Appellant X was landlord and respondents Y tenants of a business tenancy in respect of which X gave notice of termination under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25. It was in the form prescribed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (Notices) Regulations 1983. Y claimed this was invalid as it did not name them as tenants, it related to the whole of the premises whereas they only occupied the ground and first floors and it did not comply with law as it only required them to notify the landlord in writing within two months if they were not willing to give up possession. At the original hearing the first two parts were held in X`s favour and the third in Y`s. On appeal it was held that the notice was valid. X must have known that the notice only applied to their part of the building and that the nature of the counter notice was not relevant.