000			02030cam a2200289 4500
001			ABS67850
008			040602n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126369
100			_aMurdoch, S.
245			_aFatal detraction
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0420) 15 May 2004, 165(1)
520			_aDiscusses the issue of positive and negative counternotices served by tenants following Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25 notices served by landlords when determining business tenancies. In "Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Walbert Pennycook" ([2002] EWHC 2769 (Ch), Abs66721), it was resolved that positive counternotices cannot be withdrawn. The tenant (P) claimed that the deprivation of his rights to apply for a new tenancy had breached the Convention for the Protection of Human and Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Arts 1 and 6. The court ruled that statutory rights of renewal do fall within Art 1 of the Convention, but the statutory counternotices scheme does not violate it and although the right to apply for a new tenancy is clearly a civil right, Art 6 of the Convention does not guarantee the content of the right but the process of protecting of the right. Although the judgment was overturned by CA ([2004] EWCA (Civ) 100, Abs67528) the human rights dimension of the case may be of enduring interest, given that tenants' counternotice requirements were abolished by the reforms to the Act from 1 June 2004.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aRE 14 GRAFTON STREET
650			_aBRIDGERS V STANFORD
650			_aBAGLARBASI AND ANOTHER V DEEDMETHOD LTD
650			_aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 S3
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S25
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 1
650			_aCONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
650			_aSHAWS (EAL) LTD V PENNYCOOK
650			_aCOUNTERNOTICES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c117440 _d117440