Image from Google Jackets

Coastplace Ltd v Hartley and Another

Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1987) WLR 128901299(10)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: QBD 3 February 1987 The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants to enforce their covenants to pay on demand the rent payable but not paid by Larchwood Properties Ltd, as assignee of the lease . The landlords granted a licence for a lease to be assigned to the present tenant and under its terms the defendants covenanted to pay the landlords on demand any rent outstanding. "Landlord" was defined as including any person entitled to the reversion immediately expectant on the determination of the lease. The reversion was subsequently assigned to the plaintiffs, but without expressly assigning the benefit of the covenants entered into by the defendants. The tenant defaulted on the payment of the rent and the plaintiffs demanded that sum from the defendants and brought proceedings to recover the moneys outstanding. On the preliminary issue of whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of the covenants, QBD held that, although the covenants were not covenants of indemnit
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37845 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 7100-1001

QBD 3 February 1987 The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants to enforce their covenants to pay on demand the rent payable but not paid by Larchwood Properties Ltd, as assignee of the lease . The landlords granted a licence for a lease to be assigned to the present tenant and under its terms the defendants covenanted to pay the landlords on demand any rent outstanding. "Landlord" was defined as including any person entitled to the reversion immediately expectant on the determination of the lease. The reversion was subsequently assigned to the plaintiffs, but without expressly assigning the benefit of the covenants entered into by the defendants. The tenant defaulted on the payment of the rent and the plaintiffs demanded that sum from the defendants and brought proceedings to recover the moneys outstanding. On the preliminary issue of whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of the covenants, QBD held that, although the covenants were not covenants of indemnit