Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body and others
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; 1992 3 WLR 279-287(9)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: HL 16 July 1992. An appeal by the second to fourth defendants Barton Investments Ltd, Alan Moss Bayes and John Estelle Bayes from a CA decision upholding the validity of a common law notice to quit given to the plaintiff Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (P) in respect of land forming part of the site at 263-265 Walworth Road, Southwark, London by the second to fourth defendants` predecessors in title, the London Residuary Body (L). The land was sold by the first defendant to the other defendants in July 1988. The strip of land in question had been leased to the highway authority in 1930 until required for road widening. This plan was later abandoned and the reversion passed to first defendant L who was not a highway authority. The tenancy was assigned to the plaintiff P. HL declared that the land was held on a yearly basis.Therefore notice to quit was valid. CA decision reversed. Defendants` appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS46933 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 60165-1001 |
HL 16 July 1992. An appeal by the second to fourth defendants Barton Investments Ltd, Alan Moss Bayes and John Estelle Bayes from a CA decision upholding the validity of a common law notice to quit given to the plaintiff Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (P) in respect of land forming part of the site at 263-265 Walworth Road, Southwark, London by the second to fourth defendants` predecessors in title, the London Residuary Body (L). The land was sold by the first defendant to the other defendants in July 1988. The strip of land in question had been leased to the highway authority in 1930 until required for road widening. This plan was later abandoned and the reversion passed to first defendant L who was not a highway authority. The tenancy was assigned to the plaintiff P. HL declared that the land was held on a yearly basis.Therefore notice to quit was valid. CA decision reversed. Defendants` appeal allowed.