header-logo header-logo

Landlord & tenant

21 July 2017
Issue: 7755 / Categories: Case law , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

S Franses Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 1670 (QB), [2017] All ER (D) 95 (Jul)

The judge, in having dismissed the appellant tenant’s claim for a new tenancy because the respondent landlord had established its ground of opposition, had failed to explain why he had generously decided that a reasonable time for commencing construction works had been within 12 months of obtaining vacant possession. The Queen’s Bench Division also upheld the tenant’s appeal on the ground that the judge had erred in considering the entirety of the works and failing to exclude works which could not be carried out under the landlord’s right of entry.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll