000			01610cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS63329
008			000000n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u110208
100			_aBerry, C
245			_aExpediency rules OK
260			_c2000
490			_aSolicitors' Journal _v144(46) 8 December 2000, 1128-1129(2)
520			_aStudies the House of Lords decision in the case "Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon" where the landlords sought possession on the sole ground of the tenant's bankruptcy. HL upheld the CA decision that C had right of re-entry, consistent with the terms of the Rent Act 1977 s3(1) but from remarks made by one Lord, it would appear that they were unsure whether or not they should overturn the CA decision and allow M to appeal. HL arrived at a decision over the question of whether M had a legal obligation not to become bankrupt and whether or not a possession order should have been made against M where his rent was paid although he was bankrupt but the article argues that it was a 'strained' construction and examines the opinions and arguments put forward by the Lords themselves to illustrate this. Despite Lord Millet's conclusion the majority decided that the construction could be relied upon where the end result appears to be what Parliament intended, despite the poor drafting of the statute.
590			_aABS
650			_aCADOGAN ESTATES LTD V MCMAHON
650			_aRENT ACT 1977 S3
650			_aSTATUTORY TENANCY
650			_aBANKRUPTCY
650			_aINTERPRETATION
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c65725 _d65725