Image from Google Jackets

A merry-go-round of repairs

Series: Estates Gazette ; (0330) 26 July 2003, 143(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the verdict in the recent case of "Landmaster Properties Ltd v Thackeray Property Services" [2003] EWHC 959. Explains that the issue that arrose here concerned the date at which a landlord has to prove one of the statutory grounds in the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 which restricts the remedies available to a landlord during the currency of a lease. In the Landmaster Case, the application to leave was made on 12 February 2001 after a section 146 notice was served in December 2000. The hearing of the landlords application took place in September 2002: the tenant argued that this should be the date that the repair matter should be judged as at the date of the hearing. The trial judge held the relevant date was the date of the application for leave. At the appeal, J. Cox held that the trial judge had been wrong and that the 1938 act dictated that the hearing date was the relevant date.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article L123160 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 123160-1001

Discusses the verdict in the recent case of "Landmaster Properties Ltd v Thackeray Property Services" [2003] EWHC 959. Explains that the issue that arrose here concerned the date at which a landlord has to prove one of the statutory grounds in the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 which restricts the remedies available to a landlord during the currency of a lease. In the Landmaster Case, the application to leave was made on 12 February 2001 after a section 146 notice was served in December 2000. The hearing of the landlords application took place in September 2002: the tenant argued that this should be the date that the repair matter should be judged as at the date of the hearing. The trial judge held the relevant date was the date of the application for leave. At the appeal, J. Cox held that the trial judge had been wrong and that the 1938 act dictated that the hearing date was the relevant date.