Site icon swarb.co.uk

Mainwaring and Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 2): CA 3 Oct 1996

The tenants had sought to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. One tenant having signed an ‘irrevocable’ agreement to participate, withdrew his involvement in the purchase, and the remaining number of tenants were no longer a sufficient majority under the Act.
Held: The individual tenant’s right not to participate in the purchase of a freehold was not to be lost by contract. Each of the tenants is acting in his own interests, although the benefits sought to be obtained may vary. While the agent may be vulnerable to changes of mind, the appointment did not confer a property or security interest on him which would entitle him to insist on the now unwilling tenant proceeding.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 657, [1998] QB 1

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 6 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedShirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd HL 1940
Where a party enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of an existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he will do nothing of his own motion to put an end to that state of . .
See AlsoMainwaring v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 1) CA 20-Feb-1996
The claimant sought an order allowing the sale of the freehold of the building where she occupied an apartment. The trustees, when proposing to sell the building to the trustees of the Wellcome Trust, should have served notice under section 5 of the . .
CitedBelvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA 24-Oct-1995
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
CitedSmart and another v Sandars and Others CCP 12-May-1848
A factor to whom goods have been consigned generally for sale, and who has subsequently made advances to his principal on the credit of the goods, has no right to sell them, contrary to the orders of his principal, on the latter neglecting, on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.140524

Exit mobile version