Ewca 1954

934 Words2 Pages

Noteworthy case resolved by LTA 1954 is “Horne & Meredith Properties Ltd v Cox and another” [2014] EWCA Civ 423. Miss Billingsley and Mr Cox were the tenants of 7A Whitburn Street, in Shropshire. They occupy those premises for the purposes of their business. They first started occupying the property under a lease granted in 1981 which has been later renewed. When the current lease was due for renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the landlord opposed it on two grounds. The first was the willing for redevelopment under section 30 (1) (f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Judge Main QC found that that ground had not been established. The second ground was under the section 30 (1) (c) of the Act, stating that: "The tenant ought …show more content…

The main consent in the argument of the respondent, was that the latter half of section 30 (1) (C) is perplexing and without clear meaning. It has not been relied on so much since the Act was passed and that it should be regarded as superfluous to the Act. Despite that the appeal was dismissed on section 23(3) of the 1954 Act, it was concluded that the property included not only the shop, but the six parking spaces and two rights of way and the judge comments were as follow: “this is a case which as a result of the litigation and in particular its conduct the tenant "ought not" to be granted a new tenancy”. The words “out not” has not been considered as some fault or liability on the part of the tenant automatically. Main point been made is would that be fair to the landlord and would he wish to enter in new legal relationship with the tenant. The judge cited the case of “Lyons v Central Commercial Properties Ltd” [1958] 1 WLR …show more content…

. To succeed [the landlord] must satisfy the trial judge that, at the time when the court comes to make its order, he is then willing to provide alternative accommodation, or then intends to reconstruct, or as the case may be . . In short, it comes to this: the landlord must honestly and truthfully state his ground in his notice and he must establish it as existing at the time of the hearing.” Cases like the above mentioned ones are proving how important particular sections of the statue are and shows that small fractions of the Law could be interpreted and twisted differently. Time sensitivity is the one which has the key role in the Betty`s Cafes Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd. Also proving that different bodies in the legal system do not give the same judgments and demonstrates the unique practice of the English legal

Open Document