References: Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWHC Ch 178, [2001] Ch 493
Links: Bailii
Coram: Justice Laddie
Ratio: The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The 1987 Act did not confer a right to pre-emption as such. Having gone through the procedure the landlord could still sell elsewhere. He was not under an obligation to disclose every term of the proposed disposal. The Act does not allow a right to claim damages for breach of statutory duty. The Act had provided for a remedy for a failure to serve a correct notice, and the second action was itself an abuse of process.
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- See Also – Harvey Michaels and Valentina Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1920, [1997] 1 WLR 967)
The respondent sought security for costs. One plaintiff was bankrupt, and an outstanding costs order had not been met.
Held: The matter should not be adjourned pending an application for legal aid, and nor should the considerable interest in . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Approved – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD ([2004] EWHC 1938 (Comm), Bailii)
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . . - See Also – Harvey Michaels and Valentina Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1920, [1997] 1 WLR 967)
The respondent sought security for costs. One plaintiff was bankrupt, and an outstanding costs order had not been met.
Held: The matter should not be adjourned pending an application for legal aid, and nor should the considerable interest in . . - Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 74 (Ch), Times 27-Apr-06, [2007] Ch 197, [2006] 2 P & CR 23, [2006] 3 All ER 1029, [2006] 6 EGCS 170, [2007] 2 WLR 403)
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . . - Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 39, [2007] 2 WLR 1156)
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . . - Doubted – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 19, HL, [2008] BPIR 699, [2008] 2 WLR 711, [2008] STI 938, [2008] 1 AC 1174, [2008] STC 644, [2008] BVC 340, [2008] BTC 5216)
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 12 October 2018
Ref: 135764
The post Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc: ChD 19 Apr 2000 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.