Garston and others v Scottish Widows Fund & Life Assurance Society
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1998] 32 EG 88-90(3)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: CA 25 June 1998. The plaintiff G held a lease from S dated 10 July 1985, subject to early determination on six months` previous written notice at the expiration of the tenth year of the term, 23 June 1995. By letter dated 4 October 1994 G served notice to determine the lease on 9 July 1995, and also enclosed a request for a new tenancy from 10 July 1995, under s26 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The court dismissed G`s application for a declaration that the lease had determined on 23 June 1995, and decided that the request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) of the Act. G appealed. "Held" a reasonable recipient would have been left in no doubt that G wished to determine the lease on 23 June 1995, but had wrongly described the date as 9 July 1995; ten years from the lease date. The request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) as the commencement date of the new tenancy cannot be earlier than when the lease would determine by effluxion of time. Appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS59321 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 88430-1001 |
CA 25 June 1998. The plaintiff G held a lease from S dated 10 July 1985, subject to early determination on six months` previous written notice at the expiration of the tenth year of the term, 23 June 1995. By letter dated 4 October 1994 G served notice to determine the lease on 9 July 1995, and also enclosed a request for a new tenancy from 10 July 1995, under s26 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The court dismissed G`s application for a declaration that the lease had determined on 23 June 1995, and decided that the request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) of the Act. G appealed. "Held" a reasonable recipient would have been left in no doubt that G wished to determine the lease on 23 June 1995, but had wrongly described the date as 9 July 1995; ten years from the lease date. The request for a new tenancy infringed the proviso to s26(2) as the commencement date of the new tenancy cannot be earlier than when the lease would determine by effluxion of time. Appeal allowed.