Image from Google Jackets

First Penthouse Ltd v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Ltd: Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Ltd v Fahad Al Tamimi and others

Series: Estates Gazette ; [2004] 04 EG 148-157(10)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2003] EWHC 2713 (Ch), 14 November 2003. Judgment on two actions relating to a lease of the roof space of a block of flats in which a number of penthouses were to be constructed. In the first action, claimant (FP), to whom the lease had originally been charged, had applied to the defendant (CHAPS), who had been granted an overriding lease in reversion of the lease after a change of freeholder, for a licence to assign the lease to defendant (T). FP sought a declaration that CHAPS had unreasonably withheld consent. FT completed the transfer to T. In the second action by CHAPS against FP, T and the five underlessees, CHAPS sought to establish and enforce its entitlement to forfeit the lease for breaches of covenant by reason of i), FP's unauthorised lease assignment to T ii), the failure to carry out and complete the roof space development expeditiously. FP and T maintained that any right to forfeit in respect of ii) had been waived. "Held": that CHAPs had unreasonably withheld consent. CHAPS also waived the right to forfeit the lease for breach of the covenant to carry out and complete the development expeditiously and its action was dismissed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS67353 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 124642-1001

[2003] EWHC 2713 (Ch), 14 November 2003. Judgment on two actions relating to a lease of the roof space of a block of flats in which a number of penthouses were to be constructed. In the first action, claimant (FP), to whom the lease had originally been charged, had applied to the defendant (CHAPS), who had been granted an overriding lease in reversion of the lease after a change of freeholder, for a licence to assign the lease to defendant (T). FP sought a declaration that CHAPS had unreasonably withheld consent. FT completed the transfer to T. In the second action by CHAPS against FP, T and the five underlessees, CHAPS sought to establish and enforce its entitlement to forfeit the lease for breaches of covenant by reason of i), FP's unauthorised lease assignment to T ii), the failure to carry out and complete the roof space development expeditiously. FP and T maintained that any right to forfeit in respect of ii) had been waived. "Held": that CHAPs had unreasonably withheld consent. CHAPS also waived the right to forfeit the lease for breach of the covenant to carry out and complete the development expeditiously and its action was dismissed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.