John Lewis Properties plc v Viscount Chelsea
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 34 EG 116-124(9)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: ChD 11 March 1993. In 1939 the premises in question became part of the Peter Jones department store in Sloane Square under a 999 year building lease. In 1969 it was listed as a Grade II listed building. By two notices served on the plaintiff (J) by the landlord (V), pursuant to Law of Property Act 1925 s146, J was required to remedy breaches of the building covenants. The relevant clause of the lease provided that J should, at their own cost, pull down the building then standing on the land and erect and build on the site buildings in accordance with plans which had been approved by V. J sought declarations as to the meaning and effect of this clause, the effect of supervening events on their enforceability and the waiver of forfeiture by acceptance of rent. J contended that the obligation in the lease was to demolish and build in conformity with plans already approved by V however no plans had been approved for the block in question. The covenants were therefore incapable of perform| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS49191 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 70296-1001 |
ChD 11 March 1993. In 1939 the premises in question became part of the Peter Jones department store in Sloane Square under a 999 year building lease. In 1969 it was listed as a Grade II listed building. By two notices served on the plaintiff (J) by the landlord (V), pursuant to Law of Property Act 1925 s146, J was required to remedy breaches of the building covenants. The relevant clause of the lease provided that J should, at their own cost, pull down the building then standing on the land and erect and build on the site buildings in accordance with plans which had been approved by V. J sought declarations as to the meaning and effect of this clause, the effect of supervening events on their enforceability and the waiver of forfeiture by acceptance of rent. J contended that the obligation in the lease was to demolish and build in conformity with plans already approved by V however no plans had been approved for the block in question. The covenants were therefore incapable of perform