| 000 | 01804cab a2200193 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | L131034 | ||
| 008 | 050922n2005 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u131034 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 100 | _aRoss, Jonathan | ||
| 245 | _aCase news: Vision Golf v Weightmans | ||
| 260 | _c2005 | ||
| 490 |
_aProperty Week _v70(36) 9 September 2005, 66(1) |
||
| 520 | _aThis case ([2005] 1675 EWHC (Ch), [2005] 32 EG 66 (CS)) centred around the incompetence of the claimant's original solicitor in dealing with a breach in a lease. V entered into two leases for adjoining land with different landlords. In May 2000 one of the landlords re-entered it's land, as allowed under the lease, due to rent arrears of £40 000. The landlord agreed to grant relief from forfeiture, if the back rents were paid and measures taken to prevent further breaches. The defendant solicitor W informed V that the arrears needed to be paid as soon as possible, and they were given funds to do so. However terms were not agreed with the landlord, and despite telling V that it had done so, W made no application to the court for relief. Generally, when a landlord retakes possession without court proceedings, relief must be made within six months, although this does not apply to the HC. After the six months a new solicitor was appointed and following the advice of counsel, they too did not apply for relief since they would fail. W claimed that had the new solicitor proceeded with the claim for relief they would have been successful. "Held:" the judge did not agree with W that relief would have been granted, and that any negligence by the subsequent solicitor did not relieve W from his liability. | ||
| 590 | _aIKA270905 | ||
| 650 | _aVISION GOLF V WEIGHTMANS | ||
| 690 |
_aLandlord and tenant _96252 |
||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c75910 _d75910 |
||