Cadogan and another v Morris
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette Law Reports ; [1999] 04 EG 155-157(3)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: CA 4 November 1998. In September 1994, the respondant tenant (M) served a notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 claiming a new long lease in repect of a flat. The contractual term was due to expire in December 1994. The notice specified £100 as the suggested premium: a nominal figure which M had been advised was acceptable. A realistic figure was £100k-£300k. The county court decided that the nominal figure quoted by M did not invalidate the notice. The landlord appealed. "Held": The appeal was allowed and M`s initial notice was invalid, since under s42 of the 1993 Act the tenant is required to specify the premium which he proposes to pay.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS60002 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 91034-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 4 November 1998. In September 1994, the respondant tenant (M) served a notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 claiming a new long lease in repect of a flat. The contractual term was due to expire in December 1994. The notice specified £100 as the suggested premium: a nominal figure which M had been advised was acceptable. A realistic figure was £100k-£300k. The county court decided that the nominal figure quoted by M did not invalidate the notice. The landlord appealed. "Held": The appeal was allowed and M`s initial notice was invalid, since under s42 of the 1993 Act the tenant is required to specify the premium which he proposes to pay.