Image from Google Jackets

CIN Properties Ltd v Gill

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1993) 38 EG 152-154(3)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: QBD 7 December 1992, The plaintiff landlords, C, let a flat in a building they owned to the defendant, G, for a period of 28 years. The lease contained a covenant not to assign without the landlords consent which would not be unreasonably withheld. In February 1989 G put the lease up for sale at auction and it was acquired by another company, A. They then applied to C for their consent but this was refused. By early 1989 the rent was in arrears and C issued three writs. In the first two of these actions G counterclaimed under Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 for damages for breach of the landlords duty not to withhold consent to assignment. Before the third hearing C applied to have A wound up and to present its accounts in court. This was not allowed. C appealed and this was dismissed on the grounds that a landlord cannot rely on matters which did not influence him when he refused consent therefore later accounts were not relevant.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS49520 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 71682-1001

QBD 7 December 1992, The plaintiff landlords, C, let a flat in a building they owned to the defendant, G, for a period of 28 years. The lease contained a covenant not to assign without the landlords consent which would not be unreasonably withheld. In February 1989 G put the lease up for sale at auction and it was acquired by another company, A. They then applied to C for their consent but this was refused. By early 1989 the rent was in arrears and C issued three writs. In the first two of these actions G counterclaimed under Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 for damages for breach of the landlords duty not to withhold consent to assignment. Before the third hearing C applied to have A wound up and to present its accounts in court. This was not allowed. C appealed and this was dismissed on the grounds that a landlord cannot rely on matters which did not influence him when he refused consent therefore later accounts were not relevant.