Wessex Reserve Forces and Cadets Association v White and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 22 EG 132(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: [2005] EWHC 983 (QB) 20 May 2005. The claimant (R) applied for a new business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, having held a business tenancy for the purposes the 1954 Act. The defendant landlords (W) opposed the new tenancy under section 30(l)(f) on the ground that they intended to demolish a substantial part of the premises. The main issue was whether the huts erected by R were their chattels or had become part of the land by annexation as W argued. It was decided that the huts installed by R were part of the land but the Portakabin and other sheds were R's chattels as R was contractually obliged to remove them at the end of the tenancy and they could be easily removed. "Held": the court ruled in favour of the claimant as W had failed to prove the intention necessary under s30(l)(f).| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | L130038 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 130038-1001 |
[2005] EWHC 983 (QB) 20 May 2005. The claimant (R) applied for a new business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, having held a business tenancy for the purposes the 1954 Act. The defendant landlords (W) opposed the new tenancy under section 30(l)(f) on the ground that they intended to demolish a substantial part of the premises. The main issue was whether the huts erected by R were their chattels or had become part of the land by annexation as W argued. It was decided that the huts installed by R were part of the land but the Portakabin and other sheds were R's chattels as R was contractually obliged to remove them at the end of the tenancy and they could be easily removed. "Held": the court ruled in favour of the claimant as W had failed to prove the intention necessary under s30(l)(f).