Fortfeiture and section 146 notice getting it right Waycourt Ltd v Viscount Chelsea and another Court of Appeal, 20 March 2006 (unreported)
Language: English Series: Commercial Leases ; 20(4) April 2006, 1091-1092(2)Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the main issues of the case "Waycourt Ltd v Viscount Chelsea and another" ([2006] EWCA Civ 511, unreported). The case consisted of how W, head lessee of a building had carried out alterations on some storage vaults (accessible by a single door) by converting them into a kitchen and dining area with access from two entrances. In doing so, V (who had the freehold) asserted that W had breached a clause in the lease that stated that alterations to the layout of the premises were not permitted. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that alteration had clearly taken place. The article warns that s146 notices must be drafted with the utmost care and double checked for any discrepancies.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L133303 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 133303-1001 |
Discusses the main issues of the case "Waycourt Ltd v Viscount Chelsea and another" ([2006] EWCA Civ 511, unreported). The case consisted of how W, head lessee of a building had carried out alterations on some storage vaults (accessible by a single door) by converting them into a kitchen and dining area with access from two entrances. In doing so, V (who had the freehold) asserted that W had breached a clause in the lease that stated that alterations to the layout of the premises were not permitted. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that alteration had clearly taken place. The article warns that s146 notices must be drafted with the utmost care and double checked for any discrepancies.