A zoo that never materialised, misrepresented restaurant ventures & the question of a tenant’s ‘principal’ home. Edward Peters KC & Ashpen Rajah discuss three useful new cases
- Case one: when and how waiver of forfeiture can take place.
- Case two: opposition by misrepresentation, where a commercial landlord was held to be liable to its former tenant, McDonald’s, under s 37A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
- Case three: the question of whether residential premises are a tenant’s ‘only or principal home’.
The steady stream of new landlord and tenant authorities flows apace, as it has done for centuries; and from the almost infinite variety of disputes that can arise between landlords and tenants, we have selected three interesting and useful new cases on the following legal issues: the ever-important, but sometimes overlooked, law of waiver of forfeiture; opposing a Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 business tenancy renewal by misrepresentation; and how to establish whether a dwelling constitutes a tenant’s ‘home’ and ‘principal home’.
Waiver of forfeiture: when & how?
In The Tropical Zoo Ltd v The
