Rent deposit
Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; [2000] EGCS 149 (16/12/00)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: ChD 1 December 2000. "Obaray v Gateway (London) Ltd". Landlord (A) granted a 10-year lease of premises on a trading estate to tenant (B). B provided A with a deposit to be held on the terms of a deed. This provided for the money to be held in a separate account and entitled A to recoup unpaid rent out of the deposit. In March 2000 B was placed into voluntary liquidation. In April 2000 the liquidator (C) disclaimed the lease, at which time arrears of rent amounted to £22,975. A claimed to be entitled to deduct the arrears from the deposit. C demanded the return of all moneys held in the deposit account. The Chancery master ruled in favour of A. C appealed, contending that A was seeking to enforce a void charge and the insolvency set-off rules were not applicable. The judgment was given for A.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London News article | WB3701-27 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110084-1001 |
ChD 1 December 2000. "Obaray v Gateway (London) Ltd". Landlord (A) granted a 10-year lease of premises on a trading estate to tenant (B). B provided A with a deposit to be held on the terms of a deed. This provided for the money to be held in a separate account and entitled A to recoup unpaid rent out of the deposit. In March 2000 B was placed into voluntary liquidation. In April 2000 the liquidator (C) disclaimed the lease, at which time arrears of rent amounted to £22,975. A claimed to be entitled to deduct the arrears from the deposit. C demanded the return of all moneys held in the deposit account. The Chancery master ruled in favour of A. C appealed, contending that A was seeking to enforce a void charge and the insolvency set-off rules were not applicable. The judgment was given for A.