Johnsey Estates Ltd v Lewis & Manley (Engineering) LTD
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6362) 28 November 1987, 1240-1243(2)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 May 1987. The plaintiffs leased a building on a trading estate to the defendants (L) for a term of 21 years from December 1971, subject to rent reviews at 7 year intervals. In May 1978 (L) assigned the lease to a third party , Y, who in turn assigned it in June 1980 to a limited liability company which went into liquidation in 1984 and ceased to pay rent. In February 1985 the plaintiffs claimed from L 2,437.76 in arrears for rent and unpaid insurance premiums and in March 1985 received judgement for that sum under. L had paid other rent instalments and payments as they become due but by a third party notice claimed they were indemnified against the judgement because the deed of assignment meant that Y was obliged to pay the rent to the plaintiff as landlord during the time they were lessees. The question arose as to whether Y was liable for the rent during the period in which the property was assigned to the company that went into liquidation or whether that liability reverted| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38590 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 11396-1001 |
CA 15 May 1987. The plaintiffs leased a building on a trading estate to the defendants (L) for a term of 21 years from December 1971, subject to rent reviews at 7 year intervals. In May 1978 (L) assigned the lease to a third party , Y, who in turn assigned it in June 1980 to a limited liability company which went into liquidation in 1984 and ceased to pay rent. In February 1985 the plaintiffs claimed from L 2,437.76 in arrears for rent and unpaid insurance premiums and in March 1985 received judgement for that sum under. L had paid other rent instalments and payments as they become due but by a third party notice claimed they were indemnified against the judgement because the deed of assignment meant that Y was obliged to pay the rent to the plaintiff as landlord during the time they were lessees. The question arose as to whether Y was liable for the rent during the period in which the property was assigned to the company that went into liquidation or whether that liability reverted