82,890
edits
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (view source)
Revision as of 11:27, 25 March 2020
, 25 March 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "[[Lord Denning’s famous High Trees case, reinvigorating the old doctrine of Promissory Estoppel first articulated in way back in the day by Lord Lance Cairns<ref>Not rea...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Lord Denning’s famous [[High Trees]] case, reinvigorating the old doctrine of Promissory Estoppel first articulated in way back in the day by Lord Lance Cairns<ref>Not really Lance Cairns. Just Lord Cairns. No relation, though by some spooky irony he did play with a shoulderless bat and knocked towering sixes out of the park.<ref> {{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway}}. | {{jcklr}}[[Lord Denning’s famous [[High Trees]] case, reinvigorating the old doctrine of Promissory Estoppel first articulated in way back in the day by Lord Lance Cairns<ref>Not really Lance Cairns. Just Lord Cairns. No relation, though by some spooky irony he did play with a shoulderless bat and knocked towering sixes out of the park.<ref> {{casenote|Hughes|Metropolitan Railway}}. | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
At the end of the war, with the building back to near-full occupancy, CLPT gave notice that the rent was going back up to £2,500 — fair enough, you’d think — and claimed arrears of £7,916 for previous five years — ''total'' dick move, right?. | At the end of the war, with the building back to near-full occupancy, CLPT gave notice that the rent was going back up to £2,500 — fair enough, you’d think — and claimed arrears of £7,916 for previous five years — ''total'' dick move, right?. | ||
Enter people’s hero [[Lord Denning]], who correctly, | Enter people’s hero [[Lord Denning]], who quite correctly, was having ''none'' of this. Note that the actual action was a test case only seeking rent for periods in 19145, so technically the rent from 1940 wasn’t at issue, so the statements the Master of the Rolls made were ''[[obiter dicta]]'' — not binding statements of the common law. But they were influential all the same, and persuaded CLPT not to waste its time and money pursuing the back rent. | ||
{{ref}} | |||