Hafton-Properties Ltd v Camp and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) 03 EG 129-132(4)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: ORC 13 May 1993. By a long lease dated July 1978 C held a flat in a block, the reversion of which was owned by H. By a lease C covenanted with the lessor and S to pay S a maintenance charge being a portion of S`s expenditure on specified matters. The lease contained a right of reentry upon failure of the lessee to pay S`s charge. H claimed that C had failed to pay £9,890 in arrears of rent and service charges and sought possession of the flat following forfeiture. In their defence C alleged that S had allowed the building to fall into a state of disrepair and that H were in breach of an implied duty to perform the covenants of repair and maintenance on S`s behalf. It was held that H were not responsible for the actions of S and C had a right to apply for the appointment of a receiver in respect of any failure of S to perform its covenants under the lease.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS49994 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 73570-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
ORC 13 May 1993. By a long lease dated July 1978 C held a flat in a block, the reversion of which was owned by H. By a lease C covenanted with the lessor and S to pay S a maintenance charge being a portion of S`s expenditure on specified matters. The lease contained a right of reentry upon failure of the lessee to pay S`s charge. H claimed that C had failed to pay £9,890 in arrears of rent and service charges and sought possession of the flat following forfeiture. In their defence C alleged that S had allowed the building to fall into a state of disrepair and that H were in breach of an implied duty to perform the covenants of repair and maintenance on S`s behalf. It was held that H were not responsible for the actions of S and C had a right to apply for the appointment of a receiver in respect of any failure of S to perform its covenants under the lease.