000			01882cam a2200205 4500
001			ABS65406
008			020426n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u117703
245			_aAmbrose v Kaye
260			_c2002
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2002] 15 EG 134-139(6)
520			_aCA 17 January 2002. Appellant (A) was the tenant of business premises. Respondent landlord (K) served a notice on A under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s25, stating that K would oppose the grant of a new tenancy on ground (g) of s30(1) of the 1925 Act: K intended to occupy the premises for the purpose of his business, claiming that he had a controlling interest in a family company under s30(3) of the 1925 Act.. Following A's counternotice and application for a new tenancy, there was a hearing as to whether K could prove ground (g). In the closing submission A's solicitor-advocate stated there was no evidence that K had a controlling interest in his family company and could therefore not rely on s30(3) for making out ground (g). In the adjournment, K's wife transferred enough shares in the company to allow K to satisfy s30(3), and K was subsequently given further adjournment to allow him to gather documentary evidence. It was accepted at a further hearing that K had made out ground (g). A appealed contending the judge should not have adjourned the first hearing. "Held": appeal dismissed on the grounds that the judge had correctly exercised the power to adjourn the first hearing and that A's legal advisers should have raised the s30(3) issue earlier in the proceedings to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules.
590			_aABS
650			_aCONTROLLING INTEREST
650			_aCIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 S30
650			_aAMBROSE V KAYE
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c70087 _d70087