Image from Google Jackets

Jones v. Cleanthi [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 1712, 12 December 2006. Involves an appeal against a decision that extinguished an easement by the erection of a wall pursuant to a fire safety notice. The appellant and other tenants within the same building had been granted access to use the communal refuse bins at the rear of the property coupled with a right of access to the rear area for that purpose via the common parts of the building. In 1995 the then landlord had erected a wall blocking off access to the rear of the building pursuant to a notice served on him by the local authority under the Housing Act 1985 S352. "Held": It was decided that the performance of the statutory obligation did not have the effect of extinguishing the appellant's rights once and for all, but that the former landlord's actions in carrying out the works required by the S352 could not be considered an actionable wrong against the appellant or any of the other tenants, nor did he render himself liable for breach of his contractual obligations under the lease.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 136430-1001

[2006] EWCA Civ 1712, 12 December 2006. Involves an appeal against a decision that extinguished an easement by the erection of a wall pursuant to a fire safety notice. The appellant and other tenants within the same building had been granted access to use the communal refuse bins at the rear of the property coupled with a right of access to the rear area for that purpose via the common parts of the building. In 1995 the then landlord had erected a wall blocking off access to the rear of the building pursuant to a notice served on him by the local authority under the Housing Act 1985 S352. "Held": It was decided that the performance of the statutory obligation did not have the effect of extinguishing the appellant's rights once and for all, but that the former landlord's actions in carrying out the works required by the S352 could not be considered an actionable wrong against the appellant or any of the other tenants, nor did he render himself liable for breach of his contractual obligations under the lease.