Continue reading "Interpretation of leases: An erroneous construction"
This post is only available to members.
Interpretation of leases: An erroneous construction
Tiffany Scott QC and Charlotte Black interpret the Supreme Court’s reversal of the unanimous Court of Appeal decision on the question of reasonableness in Sequent Nominees ‘The majority held that the courts below had treated the question whether consent had been unreasonably refused as effectively determined by an erroneous construction of the lease.’ In Sequent …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Arnold v Britton & ors [2015] UKSC 36
- Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council [2001] UKHL 59
- Bates v Donaldson [1896] 2 QB 241 (CA)
- Bickel v Duke of Westminster [1977] 1 QB 517
- Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss [1982] 1 WLR 1019
- Houlder v Gibbs [1925] 1 Ch 575 (CA)
- International Drilling Fluids Ltd v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd [1986] 1 Ch 513 (CA)
- Iqbal v Thakrar [2004] 3 EGLR 21 (CA)
- Johnston & Sons v Holland [1998] 1 EGLR 264
- Molton Builders Ltd v City of Westminster LBC (1975) 30 P&CR 182
- Norfolk Capital Group Ltd v Kitway Ltd [1977] 1 QB 506
- Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011
- Sequent Nominees Ltd v Hautford Ltd [2019] UKSC 47
- West Layton v Ford [1979] 1 QB 593 (CA)
- William Hill (Southern) Ltd v Cabras (1987) 54 P&CR 42