Crago v Julian
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1992) 1 All ER, 744-749(6)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 November 1991. Upon divorce, the former husband of the defendant (J) undertook to transfer from his sole name, the tenancy of their matrimonial flat. Though in fact nothing was done to fulfil this obligation, J continued in occupation, paying the rent and spending considerable sums on the flat. Five years later, the managing agents were asked by J to change the name on her rent book, which they declined to do besides refusing to handle the rent. C, the plaintiff landlord, won the ensuing action for possession which was countered by J`s appeal under the Law of Property Act 1925 ss52-54. J`s case was that the Act did not preclude transfers of an orally created lease by means other than a deed. It was held that this was not a correct interpretation and the appeal was dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46111 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 56865-1001 |
CA 21 November 1991. Upon divorce, the former husband of the defendant (J) undertook to transfer from his sole name, the tenancy of their matrimonial flat. Though in fact nothing was done to fulfil this obligation, J continued in occupation, paying the rent and spending considerable sums on the flat. Five years later, the managing agents were asked by J to change the name on her rent book, which they declined to do besides refusing to handle the rent. C, the plaintiff landlord, won the ensuing action for possession which was countered by J`s appeal under the Law of Property Act 1925 ss52-54. J`s case was that the Act did not preclude transfers of an orally created lease by means other than a deed. It was held that this was not a correct interpretation and the appeal was dismissed.