Viscount Chelsea and another v Hirshorn
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1998] 20 EG 130-132(3)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: West London CC, 17 October 1997. Landlord H served a notice on 7 January 1997 to tenant V exercising the right to acquire a new lease of a flat. V`s solicitors signed the notice, specifying a date of 7 March 1997 by which H should respond. H`s solicitors contended that the notice was invalid because, 1) it did not comply with the Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 s42(5) in that the specified date was less than two months after the date of the tenant`s notice, 2) it had been signed by V`s solicitors rather than the tenant themselves, and that in May 1997 V attempted to cure any defect by signing a document in the form of the January 7 notice and dating it January 1. "Held" notice invalid.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS58748 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 86563-1001 |
West London CC, 17 October 1997. Landlord H served a notice on 7 January 1997 to tenant V exercising the right to acquire a new lease of a flat. V`s solicitors signed the notice, specifying a date of 7 March 1997 by which H should respond. H`s solicitors contended that the notice was invalid because, 1) it did not comply with the Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 s42(5) in that the specified date was less than two months after the date of the tenant`s notice, 2) it had been signed by V`s solicitors rather than the tenant themselves, and that in May 1997 V attempted to cure any defect by signing a document in the form of the January 7 notice and dating it January 1. "Held" notice invalid.