Rent acts
Language: English Series: EGCS ; 1988 147Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: In Hilton v Plustitle Ltd and another , CA 3 November 1988, it was held that the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a sham exists where the parties say one thing intending another. However, in the present case the judge found that it was the intention of both parties, with all the knowledge of what was involved that the flat should be let to a company.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2446-30 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 72122-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2446-27 Tenants "pressured" to buy council homes | WB2446-28 Umbrella for sheltered tenants | WB2446-29 Building on safer foundations | WB2446-30 Rent acts | WB2446-31 Rent review | WB2446-32 Section 26 notice | WB2446-33 Conditions by law |
In Hilton v Plustitle Ltd and another , CA 3 November 1988, it was held that the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a sham exists where the parties say one thing intending another. However, in the present case the judge found that it was the intention of both parties, with all the knowledge of what was involved that the flat should be let to a company.