Archive for May 2005
D had granted an underlease when there was an absolute prohibition against underletting. D counterclaimed claiming that C had unreasonably withheld consent. The court held that the underlease did not have a repairing covenant and C was entitled to refuse consent.
Landlord opposed an application for a new business tenancy under ground f. Tenant contended that huts on site were chattels and could not be demolished. Court held that they were the tenant’s fixtures and that landlord could not show requisite intention to demolish tenant’s fixtures.
C claimed adverse possession of land enclosed by arches which supported the A13 flyover. C claimed to have used the land following transfer from the GLC. After the GLC was abolished the land became vested in the Secretary of State and became Crown Land. It was held that D was entitled to rely on the 30 year limitation for adverse possession claims against Crown land.
The landlord sought to invoke two covenants. The first required the tenant to remove fixtures and fittings and make good and the second was to fit out the premises in accordance with a scheduled specification. The tenant contended that the two covenants were mutually exclusive and the notice requesting reinstatement was void for uncertainty. The court held that they were not mutually exclusive and it was obvious the fit out clause would take precedence. The notice was valid.