||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 17 (Apr)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Ward, Latham and Lloyd LJJ
||Grant Crawford (instructed by Wismayers) for the claimant.
||Timothy Higginson (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the defendant.
||3 April 2006
Contract - Compromise - Construction - Landlord and tenant compromising forfeiture proceedings in respect of unpaid service charges - Consent order providing that specified sum could not be recovered from tenant - Landlord, as management company, levying contribution to recovery fund under articles of association from tenant as shareholder - Whether levy precluded by compromise agreement.
Where a consent order settled forfeiture proceedings between a tenant and a landlord, in relation to a dispute concerning service charges, on the terms that a specified sum could not be recovered from the tenant, it did, on its true construction, preclude the landlord from recovering that sum as a management company from its tenant as a shareholder, pursuant the articles of association. Although there was some overlap between the parties' relationship as landlord and tenant, and their relationship as company and shareholder, there were real differences between the two aspects of the relationship. The consent order did not deal with both aspects. It merely settled the dispute between the parties as landlord and tenant.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary