Image from Google Jackets

Minchburn Ltd v Peck

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8815) 16 April 1988, 97-99(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 2 November 1987. By a 99 year lease the defendant (P) occupied a flat, of which he had previously been the sitting tenant at a low rent, in consideration of a premium of £10,000, £8,000 of which was raised by mortgaging the lease to the then landlord. Subsequently the freehold reversion was transfered to the plaintiffs (M) along with the benefit of the mortgage . Two actions were brought by the landlord in November 1980, claiming outstanding sums due under the mortgage In 1984 P counterclaimed, after a possession order had been set aside, claiming damages for breach of the landlords repairing covenants . It was held that the mortgage and service charge arrears should be paid and M should pay £1,050 damages. All arrears were paid so the appeal was directed at P`s counterclaim. After reassessment of the damage the appeal was allowed in part reducing the sum of £800 plus costs to £700 plus costs as, if the action had been brought earlier the damage would have been lessened.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39077 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 14275-1001

CA 2 November 1987. By a 99 year lease the defendant (P) occupied a flat, of which he had previously been the sitting tenant at a low rent, in consideration of a premium of £10,000, £8,000 of which was raised by mortgaging the lease to the then landlord. Subsequently the freehold reversion was transfered to the plaintiffs (M) along with the benefit of the mortgage . Two actions were brought by the landlord in November 1980, claiming outstanding sums due under the mortgage In 1984 P counterclaimed, after a possession order had been set aside, claiming damages for breach of the landlords repairing covenants . It was held that the mortgage and service charge arrears should be paid and M should pay £1,050 damages. All arrears were paid so the appeal was directed at P`s counterclaim. After reassessment of the damage the appeal was allowed in part reducing the sum of £800 plus costs to £700 plus costs as, if the action had been brought earlier the damage would have been lessened.