Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2001] 10 EG, 164-166(3)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Central London CC 20 November 2000. Under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42, tenant (A) sought a new lease, and proposed a premium of £110,000. In a counternotice landlord (B) proposed a premium of £175,000. A contended B's counternotice was invalid, as it failed to admit A's claim, and claimed entitlement to an extended lease at the amount specified in his claim notice. "Held". Claim dismissed. A had been unreasonable in thinking B's counternotice did not admit the right to a new lease. The counternotice was valid for the purposes of s45(2)(a) of the 1993 Act.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS63736 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111483-1001 |
Central London CC 20 November 2000. Under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42, tenant (A) sought a new lease, and proposed a premium of £110,000. In a counternotice landlord (B) proposed a premium of £175,000. A contended B's counternotice was invalid, as it failed to admit A's claim, and claimed entitlement to an extended lease at the amount specified in his claim notice. "Held". Claim dismissed. A had been unreasonable in thinking B's counternotice did not admit the right to a new lease. The counternotice was valid for the purposes of s45(2)(a) of the 1993 Act.