000			01414cab a2200265 4500
001			ABS60002
008			090401t1999 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u91034
041			_aeng
245			_aCadogan and another v Morris
260			_c1999
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette Law Reports _v[1999] 04 EG 155-157(3)
520			_aCA 4 November 1998. In September 1994, the respondant tenant (M) served a notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42 claiming a new long lease in repect of a flat. The contractual term was due to expire in December 1994. The notice specified £100 as the suggested premium: a nominal figure which M had been advised was acceptable. A realistic figure was £100k-£300k. The county court decided that the nominal figure quoted by M did not invalidate the notice. The landlord appealed. "Held": The appeal was allowed and M`s initial notice was invalid, since under s42 of the 1993 Act the tenant is required to specify the premium which he proposes to pay.
650			_aCALCULATION
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
650			_aLONG LEASES
650			_aNOTICES
650			_aPREMIUMS
650			_aVISCOUNT CHELSEA V MORRIS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASEHOLD REFORM-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c02/02/1999
999			_c57763 _d57763