Image from Google Jackets

Crown Estate Commissioners v Town Investments Ltd (National Westminster Bank third party)

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1992) 08 EG 111-118(5)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: ORB 26 November 1991. The plaintiffs C were landlords of the premises in question and the defendants T, tenants under a lease which expired on 5 April 1985. At that date the major part of the building was occupied by the bank, the third floor by a company and the 4th, 5th and 6th floors were empty. At expiry of the lease the premises were in disrepair. C carried out the repairs for the sum of £250,000. This case is a preliminary issue to determine whether C has a defence to a claim for dilapidations by reason of the fact that it left in possession subtenants with a right to new tenancies under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part II. Some time before expiry of the headlease notices had been served under the Act so that new leases could be granted without opposition by the court. It was held that T was not responsible for the repairs as C`s common law damages were extinguishable by s18.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS45932 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 55958-1001

ORB 26 November 1991. The plaintiffs C were landlords of the premises in question and the defendants T, tenants under a lease which expired on 5 April 1985. At that date the major part of the building was occupied by the bank, the third floor by a company and the 4th, 5th and 6th floors were empty. At expiry of the lease the premises were in disrepair. C carried out the repairs for the sum of £250,000. This case is a preliminary issue to determine whether C has a defence to a claim for dilapidations by reason of the fact that it left in possession subtenants with a right to new tenancies under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part II. Some time before expiry of the headlease notices had been served under the Act so that new leases could be granted without opposition by the court. It was held that T was not responsible for the repairs as C`s common law damages were extinguishable by s18.