Hart v Emelkirk Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1982 |
| Year | 1982 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
High Court - Powers - Appointment of receiver - Landlord and tenant - Landlord's failure to comply with covenants - Building in disrepair - Whether court empowered to appoint receiver to collect rents and manage property -
The freeholder of two London blocks of flats let the flats separately to tenants under long leases and covenanted for itself and its successors in title to, inter alia, keep the blocks insured against the usual risks and to maintain and keep in repair the main structure of the blocks. The defendant bought the blocks in July 1979 and registered the titles. In September 1979 the defendant sold the blocks by auction and executed registered transfers of the blocks to the purchaser. Meanwhile the properties had fallen into disrepair, no attempt had been made to collect the rents or other contributions to maintenance and services provided for under the leases, and the landlord's covenants to keep the property in repair and to effect insurance had not been complied with.
The tenants in each block brought actions to obtain a mandatory injunction against the defendant company to comply with the covenants in the leases and for damages and they applied for an order that pending trial a named surveyor should be appointed to receive the rents of the flats and other moneys payable and to manage the blocks in accordance with the landlord's obligations:—
Held, granting the application, that since the state of the properties demanded urgent action, it was both just and convenient, within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, that a receiver be appointed to support the enforcement by the court of the covenants affecting the properties.
The following case is referred to in the judgment:
Riches v. Owen (
The following additional case was cited in argument:
McLeod v. Phelps (
MOTIONS
The plaintiff, Prudence Jane Hart, and four other plaintiffs were the owners of flats held by them on long leases and numbered respectively 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20, Cambridge Mansions, Cambridge Road, Wandsworth, London. The defendant, Emelkirk Ltd., was the registered proprietor of the block and of the reversion expectant upon each of the leases, which contained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maunder Taylor v Blaquiere
...Goulding J had been able to appoint a receiver in circumstances where all the tenants were agreeable to such a course being taken (see Hart v Emelkirk Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1289), but Parliament decided to put the matter on a statutory basis in 1987. 50 It is clear to my mind that Parliament int......
-
Clayhope Properties Ltd v Evans
...of the kind represented by the order of the 9th February, 1984 are of comparatively recent origin and stem from the decision in Hart v. Emelkirk Ltd. [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1289. In that case Mr. Justice Goulding, in exercise of the power of the court under section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981......
- Hafton Properties Ltd v Camp, Camp v Silchester Court (Croydon) Management Company
-
Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd
...Boehm v. Goodall [1911] 1 Ch. 155, has held that there is no such power and the question must now be determined by this court. 2In Hart v. Emelkirk Limited [1983] 1 WLR 1289 Goulding J. held that the court has power to make an interlocutory order appointing a receiver and manager in a cas......