Set-off against rent
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2001] EGCS 25 (1) (03/03/01)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: "Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and another" ChD 14 February 2001. A occupied a shop with residential accommodation, which he held on a 21 year lease granted by B. In January 1994 the shop was severely damaged by a storm. A continued to pay the full rent until September 1995, but then ceased his payments. Under the insurance provisions of the lease only 30-40% of the rent was payable while the shop was in disrepair. A made no demand for repayment. In February 1997 B levyed distress for arrears of rent, and the bailiffs sold the goods in the shop, allegedly undervaluing them. A claimed the distress was unlawful, as B was bound to return earlier rent payments mistakenly made. The court considered whether B should have been notified of A's claim beforehand, and whether A had an immediate right to repayment at the date of distress. Implications of article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights were also considered. Court ruled in favour of A.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London News article | WB3710-28 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111302-1001 |
"Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and another" ChD 14 February 2001. A occupied a shop with residential accommodation, which he held on a 21 year lease granted by B. In January 1994 the shop was severely damaged by a storm. A continued to pay the full rent until September 1995, but then ceased his payments. Under the insurance provisions of the lease only 30-40% of the rent was payable while the shop was in disrepair. A made no demand for repayment. In February 1997 B levyed distress for arrears of rent, and the bailiffs sold the goods in the shop, allegedly undervaluing them. A claimed the distress was unlawful, as B was bound to return earlier rent payments mistakenly made. The court considered whether B should have been notified of A's claim beforehand, and whether A had an immediate right to repayment at the date of distress. Implications of article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights were also considered. Court ruled in favour of A.