Nurit Bar v Pathwood Investments Ltd
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1987) 54 PCR 178-186(8)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 27 February 1987 Appeal against a cc decision upholding the decision of the registrar on an application by the landlords of premises in Hampstead, that the court had no jurisdiction to allow an amendment to an application for a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 when the time-limit for making the application under s 29(3) 1954 Act had expired. The tenant occupied the ground floor and first floor of the premises and the original application for a new tenancy only referred to the ground floor. The tenant sought an amendment to the original application to include the first floor. CA held that the court did have the jurisdiction to allow amendments to the application after the expiry of the time-limit. The court would exercise its discretion to allow the amendment as the tenant would suffer substantial detriment if the flat on the first floor which was her home was not protected by the 1954 Act, while the landlord was not being deprived of any vested right, since it wa| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38428 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10502-1001 |
CA 27 February 1987 Appeal against a cc decision upholding the decision of the registrar on an application by the landlords of premises in Hampstead, that the court had no jurisdiction to allow an amendment to an application for a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 when the time-limit for making the application under s 29(3) 1954 Act had expired. The tenant occupied the ground floor and first floor of the premises and the original application for a new tenancy only referred to the ground floor. The tenant sought an amendment to the original application to include the first floor. CA held that the court did have the jurisdiction to allow amendments to the application after the expiry of the time-limit. The court would exercise its discretion to allow the amendment as the tenant would suffer substantial detriment if the flat on the first floor which was her home was not protected by the 1954 Act, while the landlord was not being deprived of any vested right, since it wa