Mountain v Hastings
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 29 EG 96-100(5)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: CA 24 March 1993. The landlord`s (M) claim for possession of a flat, including mesne profits and arrears of rent, was challenged on appeal by H. H`s contention was that while there was no dispute over the fact of rent arrears, the court had not given due consideration to H`s counterclaim that the rent should be reduced by way of set-off against the flat`s condition; the recorder had improperly used his discretion to refuse an adjournment to hear this claim. Further, he had no jurisdiction to judge the application as M`s notice had not been drafted as prescribed by the Housing Act 1988. Appeal allowed as ground 8 had not been specified or included the words "at least three months notice".| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS49004 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 69437-1001 |
CA 24 March 1993. The landlord`s (M) claim for possession of a flat, including mesne profits and arrears of rent, was challenged on appeal by H. H`s contention was that while there was no dispute over the fact of rent arrears, the court had not given due consideration to H`s counterclaim that the rent should be reduced by way of set-off against the flat`s condition; the recorder had improperly used his discretion to refuse an adjournment to hear this claim. Further, he had no jurisdiction to judge the application as M`s notice had not been drafted as prescribed by the Housing Act 1988. Appeal allowed as ground 8 had not been specified or included the words "at least three months notice".