000			01474cab a2200193 4500
001			L130038
008			050617n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u130038
041			_aeng
245			_aWessex Reserve Forces and Cadets Association v White and another
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 22 EG 132(1)
520			_a[2005] EWHC 983 (QB) 20 May 2005. The claimant (R) applied for a new business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, having held a business tenancy for the purposes the 1954 Act. The defendant landlords (W) opposed the new tenancy under section 30(l)(f) on the ground that they intended to demolish a substantial part of the premises. The main issue was whether the huts erected by R were their chattels or had become part of the land by annexation as W argued. It was decided that the huts installed by R were part of the land but the Portakabin and other sheds were R's chattels as R was contractually obliged to remove them at the end of the tenancy and they could be easily removed. "Held": the court ruled in favour of the claimant as W had failed to prove the intention necessary under s30(l)(f).
590			_aIKA210605
650			_aWESSEX RESERVE FORCES AND CADETS ASSOCIATION V WHITE AND ANOTHER
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 PART II
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
999			_c75410 _d75410