Image from Google Jackets

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
Holdings
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