Image from Google Jackets

Garston and others v Scottish Widows Fund & Life Assurance Society

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1998] 32 EG 88-90(3)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: CA 25 June 1998. The plaintiff G held a lease from S dated 10 July 1985, subject to early determination on six months` previous written notice at the expiration of the tenth year of the term, 23 June 1995. By letter dated 4 October 1994 G served notice to determine the lease on 9 July 1995, and also enclosed a request for a new tenancy from 10 July 1995, under s26 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The court dismissed G`s application for a declaration that the lease had determined on 23 June 1995, and decided that the request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) of the Act. G appealed. "Held" a reasonable recipient would have been left in no doubt that G wished to determine the lease on 23 June 1995, but had wrongly described the date as 9 July 1995; ten years from the lease date. The request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) as the commencement date of the new tenancy cannot be earlier than when the lease would determine by effluxion of time. Appeal allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS59321 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 88430-1001

CA 25 June 1998. The plaintiff G held a lease from S dated 10 July 1985, subject to early determination on six months` previous written notice at the expiration of the tenth year of the term, 23 June 1995. By letter dated 4 October 1994 G served notice to determine the lease on 9 July 1995, and also enclosed a request for a new tenancy from 10 July 1995, under s26 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The court dismissed G`s application for a declaration that the lease had determined on 23 June 1995, and decided that the request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) of the Act. G appealed. "Held" a reasonable recipient would have been left in no doubt that G wished to determine the lease on 23 June 1995, but had wrongly described the date as 9 July 1995; ten years from the lease date. The request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) as the commencement date of the new tenancy cannot be earlier than when the lease would determine by effluxion of time. Appeal allowed.