Langevad and another v Chiswick Quay Freeholds Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1999] 08 EG 173-176(4)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 November 1998. The tenants (L) held leases began in 1977 and 1978 on houses. In 1995, they gave notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to purchase the freeholds on their properties. C agreed to convey the freeholds subject to certain conditions preventing construction or other works. L challenged these conditions, claiming that s10(4) of the 1967 Act concerned covenants related to the user and not developments. L`s claim was dismissed. L appealed. "Held", appeal dismissed. The explanation of "restrictive covenants" given in the Land Charges Act 1925 is commonly used to identify the whole range of restrictive covenants, not just user provisions. Thus, when using the same wording in the 1967 Act, it was intended to imply the full range of restrictive covenants, as in the Land Charges Act 1925.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS60199 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 91816-1001 |
CA 11 November 1998. The tenants (L) held leases began in 1977 and 1978 on houses. In 1995, they gave notice under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to purchase the freeholds on their properties. C agreed to convey the freeholds subject to certain conditions preventing construction or other works. L challenged these conditions, claiming that s10(4) of the 1967 Act concerned covenants related to the user and not developments. L`s claim was dismissed. L appealed. "Held", appeal dismissed. The explanation of "restrictive covenants" given in the Land Charges Act 1925 is commonly used to identify the whole range of restrictive covenants, not just user provisions. Thus, when using the same wording in the 1967 Act, it was intended to imply the full range of restrictive covenants, as in the Land Charges Act 1925.