Write a Case Note on Liverpool City Council V Irwin [1977] Ac 239.

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

The hearing was commenced on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 at the Land and Environment Court 3A, Windeyer Chambers 225 Macquarie Street, Sydney. It was led by Commissioner Dixon.

The Council commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, however they were dismissed by Lloyd J on February16 2005 for want of prosecution [5].

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

This case is about property lease which took place between two parties named Jacek Gnych, Anor (Appellants) and The Polish Club Limited (Respondent).The Respondent holds a club liquor licence under the Liquor Act 2007 (NSW). However,In 2012, the respondent leased part of its licensed premises to the appellants for the running of a restaurant which breached Section 92(1) (d) of the Liquor Act. The appellants started their business on March 2012 after renovating the existing facilities. Later on respondent negotiated with the Appellants about proposed lease and licence but documents that had been drafted were never finalised and signed. As the relationship between parties deteriorated

Scott Baker J had previously awarded £1.3 million to St Albans. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement against International Computers Ltd however reduced the damages by £484,000 as this was

I, Nathanael Webbe Ferguson of 1 Eleanor Close am an ex-tenant of 4 Hobart Croft and was a cohabiting housemate of Mr Joseph Lasore [the defendant of this claim].

The second argument will be delivered by Beatrice where her account of the occurrences will be reviewed, along with possible claims and remedies available to her. Crucial acts which may be of great use to Beatrice will also be referenced, in order to strengthen her case against the defendant Macgregor hotel.

Studmaster Pty Ltd was a landlord that owned a shopping complex in Bourke Street, Melbourne. Mrs Tran operated the “Vietnamese Lunch Box” outlet in the food court. She had little ability to speak or read English, which the representatives for Studmaster knew about. Studmaster proposed a three year renewal of her lease at $48,000 per annum plus GST for the first year and CPI increments in the second and third years.

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

WHEREAS, in the Suit, Plaintiffs seek to recover certain claimed losses and damages alleged to have arisen out of the Plaintiffs’ occupation of a rental apartment unit owned by Defendant (hereinafter, “the Event”);

In the West London County Court proceeding were brought by Ghaidan. Judge Cowell granted a declaration that Godin-Mendoza did not succeed to the tenancy of the flat as the surviving spouse, but became entitled to an assured tenancy of the flat by succession as a member of the original tenant’s family.

I am asked by the owner of The Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1,100,000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.