Image from Google Jackets

Latimer and another v Carney and another

Contributor(s): Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (0650) 16 December 2006, 86-96(11)Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Summary: Discusses a case ([2006] EWCA Civ 1417) where appellant landlord appealed against a decision dismissing their action against their former tenants for breach of a repair covenant in a lease between the parties. The issues on appeal were whether the judge had been right to hold that the landlord had failed to prove the damage to the reversion, whether the landlord should be granted permission to amend their notice of appeal, whether the covenant to redecorate was a repair covenant to which the cap under s.18(1) applied, and whether the judge had been correct to order that the landlord alone should pay the costs of the third respondent in Part 20 proceedings between the tenants. "Held": expert evidence as to the diminution in value of the reversion was not necessary. The judge had correctly found that the court could infer the amount by which the reversion had diminished in value from the evidence as to the estimated cost of the repairs, but the judge had erred in holding that there was no sufficient evidence on the facts of the instant case.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Journal article London Journal article L136104 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 136104-1001
Journal article London Journal article L136104 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 2 Available 136104-1002

Discusses a case ([2006] EWCA Civ 1417) where appellant landlord appealed against a decision dismissing their action against their former tenants for breach of a repair covenant in a lease between the parties. The issues on appeal were whether the judge had been right to hold that the landlord had failed to prove the damage to the reversion, whether the landlord should be granted permission to amend their notice of appeal, whether the covenant to redecorate was a repair covenant to which the cap under s.18(1) applied, and whether the judge had been correct to order that the landlord alone should pay the costs of the third respondent in Part 20 proceedings between the tenants. "Held": expert evidence as to the diminution in value of the reversion was not necessary. The judge had correctly found that the court could infer the amount by which the reversion had diminished in value from the evidence as to the estimated cost of the repairs, but the judge had erred in holding that there was no sufficient evidence on the facts of the instant case.