Landlord and tenant: lease enfranchisement
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2001] 25 EG 158 (CS) (23/06/01)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: "Penman v Upavon Enterprises Ltd", CA 13 June 2001. Responding to tenants (P) serving a lease enfranchisement notice, landlord (U) served a counternotice requiring that an indemnity covenant should be included in the conveyance. The leasehold valuation tribunal determined the price to be paid but failed to mention the terms of the conveyance including the indemnity covenant. The parties failed to reach an agreement about the remaining terms. P applied for a vesting order which was subsequently dismissed on U's appeal. P appealed contending the tribunal's decision had been a final decision of the issues. Appeal dismissed on the grounds that the tribunal's decision could not be final with respect to what it had not decided.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London News article | WB3725-25 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 113333-1001 |
"Penman v Upavon Enterprises Ltd", CA 13 June 2001. Responding to tenants (P) serving a lease enfranchisement notice, landlord (U) served a counternotice requiring that an indemnity covenant should be included in the conveyance. The leasehold valuation tribunal determined the price to be paid but failed to mention the terms of the conveyance including the indemnity covenant. The parties failed to reach an agreement about the remaining terms. P applied for a vesting order which was subsequently dismissed on U's appeal. P appealed contending the tribunal's decision had been a final decision of the issues. Appeal dismissed on the grounds that the tribunal's decision could not be final with respect to what it had not decided.