Image from Google Jackets

Van Haarlam and another v Kasner and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 1992 36 EG 135-146(6)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: ChD 22 January 1992. Raises the question of whether a tenant is entitled to relief from forfeiture in relation to a breach of covenant not to use the premises (a flat) for illegal or immoral purposes. The plaintiff tenant (V) was granted a 99-year tenancy in 1985. The lease contained provisions for forfeiture and a covenant not to use the premises for immoral purposes. On 2 April 1988 V was arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act. On 23 May 1988 defendant trustees K and assignees to the reversion of the flat allowed a demand for ground rent from 24 June 1988 to be sent to V. The ground rent was paid on V`s behalf by his solicitor. A second rent demand in November 1988 was paid in February 1989. On 8 December 1989 K sent notice to V alleging breach of covenant. On 21 December 1989 K re-entered the flat. Rent demands prepared in May and November 1989 were not sent to V. V argued that firstly the notice given on 8 December 1989 did not satisfy Law of Property Act 1925 s146,
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS47089 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 60777-1001

ChD 22 January 1992. Raises the question of whether a tenant is entitled to relief from forfeiture in relation to a breach of covenant not to use the premises (a flat) for illegal or immoral purposes. The plaintiff tenant (V) was granted a 99-year tenancy in 1985. The lease contained provisions for forfeiture and a covenant not to use the premises for immoral purposes. On 2 April 1988 V was arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act. On 23 May 1988 defendant trustees K and assignees to the reversion of the flat allowed a demand for ground rent from 24 June 1988 to be sent to V. The ground rent was paid on V`s behalf by his solicitor. A second rent demand in November 1988 was paid in February 1989. On 8 December 1989 K sent notice to V alleging breach of covenant. On 21 December 1989 K re-entered the flat. Rent demands prepared in May and November 1989 were not sent to V. V argued that firstly the notice given on 8 December 1989 did not satisfy Law of Property Act 1925 s146,