| 000 | 01058cab a2200301 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS58908 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u86955 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 100 | _aTanney, A. | ||
| 245 | _aIssuing a writ won`t terminate a lease | ||
| 260 | _c1998 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aProperty Week _v63(8) 5 June 1998, 44(1) |
||
| 520 | _aReviews the two recent cases of "Maryland Estates v Joseph" and "Ivory Gate Limited v Spatale", where the CA has affirmed the rule that the issue and service of a writ or county court summons seeking possession of property on the ground of forfeiture does not actually determine the lease. | ||
| 650 | _aCOMMERCIAL LEASES | ||
| 650 | _aCOUNTY COURT SUMMONS | ||
| 650 | _aCOUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 | ||
| 650 | _aDETERMINATION | ||
| 650 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 | ||
| 650 | _aRE-ENTRY | ||
| 650 | _aRELIEF FROM FORFEITURE | ||
| 650 | _aWRIT | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES | ||
| 700 | _aShea, C. | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c23/06/1998 | ||
| 999 |
_c54762 _d54762 |
||