000			01839cab a2200289 4500
001			ABS59319
008			090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u88419
041			_aeng
245			_aCromwell Developments Ltd v Godfrey and others: Same v Wright and others
260			_c1998
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[1998] 33 EG 72-76(5)
520			_aCA 8 April 1998. The defendants were granted two leases of adjoining office suites: 32A and 32B. In 1984 both leases were assigned to CBL. CBL were dissolved in 1987 and the leases became vested in the Crown; the plaintiff landlords (C) were unaware of these events. The leases were disclaimed in 1993. CBTS, who were controlled by the same person who controlled CBL, were tenants of unit 28 in the same building and paid the rent of 32A and 32B from about 1989 until September 1990. Thereafter arrears began to arise and a liquidator was appointed. C`s claims for arrears in the two consolidated actions, one against the original tenants and the other against the defendants as being liable under an indemnity, were dismissed by the county court on the ground that the leases had terminated either by forfeiture or re-entry. C appealed. "Held" C did not manifest an intention to forfeit the leases; their conduct was not equivocal and, there was no constructive re-entry. Appeal allowed.
650			_aDISCLAIMER OF LEASE
650			_aFORFEITURE
650			_aHINDCASTLE LTD V BARBARA ATTENBOROUGH ASSOCIATES LTD
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT _96252
650			_aLIABILITY
650			_aLONDON & COUNTY (A&D) LTD V WILFRED SPORTSMAN LTD
650			_aORIGINAL TENANT LIABILITY
650			_aRE-ENTRY
650			_aRENT ARREARS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c11/09/1998
999			_c55852 _d55852