Image from Google Jackets

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.
Holdings
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.