Image from Google Jackets

Hagee (London) Ltd v Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1992) 06 EG 122-126(4)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: ChD 19 July 1991. The plaintiff H was tenant of three shops under a lease dated 6 November 1984 for a term of 25 years. The defendant, C was the grantor of the lease and immediate landlord. In March 1989 C gained planning permission to redevelop an area of which the premises formed the eastern edge. Two of the buildings were Grade II listed buildings. H agreed in the lease not to make structural alterations or additions, not to cut main walls or timbers and not to contravene listed building law. The lease also contained a covenant for reentry on breach of covenant. In 1989 it was decided to replace the airconditioning system. No leave was sought from C or any other bodies such as English Heritage or local authorities. The works were noted and reported to C who decided to do nothing, but C did stop accepting the rent. It is believed that C, who needed the property for redevelopment hoped that a breach of covenant would occur and a forfeiture be possible. On 20 December 1989 a notice w
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS45933 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 55962-1001

ChD 19 July 1991. The plaintiff H was tenant of three shops under a lease dated 6 November 1984 for a term of 25 years. The defendant, C was the grantor of the lease and immediate landlord. In March 1989 C gained planning permission to redevelop an area of which the premises formed the eastern edge. Two of the buildings were Grade II listed buildings. H agreed in the lease not to make structural alterations or additions, not to cut main walls or timbers and not to contravene listed building law. The lease also contained a covenant for reentry on breach of covenant. In 1989 it was decided to replace the airconditioning system. No leave was sought from C or any other bodies such as English Heritage or local authorities. The works were noted and reported to C who decided to do nothing, but C did stop accepting the rent. It is believed that C, who needed the property for redevelopment hoped that a breach of covenant would occur and a forfeiture be possible. On 20 December 1989 a notice w