000			01357cam a2200205 4500
001			WB3725-25
008			000000n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u113333
245			_aLandlord and tenant: lease enfranchisement
260			_c2001
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2001] 25 EG 158 (CS) (23/06/01)
520			_a"Penman v Upavon Enterprises Ltd", CA 13 June 2001. Responding to tenants (P) serving a lease enfranchisement notice, landlord (U) served a counternotice requiring that an indemnity covenant should be included in the conveyance. The leasehold valuation tribunal determined the price to be paid but failed to mention the terms of the conveyance including the indemnity covenant. The parties failed to reach an agreement about the remaining terms. P applied for a vesting order which was subsequently dismissed on U's appeal. P appealed contending the tribunal's decision had been a final decision of the issues. Appeal dismissed on the grounds that the tribunal's decision could not be final with respect to what it had not decided.
590			_aWB
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
650			_aPENMAN V UPAVON ENTERPRISES LTD
650			_aLEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c67514 _d67514