| 000 | 01526cab a2200193 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS37216 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1986 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u2940 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aLondon and Associated Investment Trust PLC v Calow and Another | ||
| 260 | _c1986 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v280(6313) 6 December 1986,1252-1257(5) |
||
| 520 | _aChD 22 May 1986. Underlessees(P) sought against defendants(D) payments for rent and service charges for premises in the City of London, part occupied by D. Question was whether D were liable under an oral contract to pay rent and indemnify P against service charges in relation to the underlease,or whether D were tenants,rather than licensees. Also whether the principles established in Street v Mountford ,(Abstract 34734) could be applied. The facts in respect of occupation were complex and confusing. The underlease to P was granted,but proposed subunderleases to D and other parties were never executed, proposed assignment of a part was never executed and proposed orders under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s38(4) were never obtained. Arrangements broke down and the dispute arose as to D`s liability for rent and service charges for a part year after they left the premises. It was held there was no evidence to support a contract of indemnity. D had become tenants with the three essential | ||
| 650 | _aBUSINESS TENANCIES | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c1771 _d1771 |
||