Windmill Investments (London) Ltd v Milano Restaurant Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1962
Date1962
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
10 cases
  • Leivest International Pte Ltd v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 January 2006
    ...upon a prior forfeiture, cannot countervail the fact of such receipt. 42 In Windmill Investments (London) Ltd v Milano Restaurant Ltd [1962] 2 QB 373, rent was paid and the landlord’s receipt stated expressly that “This receipt is given without prejudice to the following breaches of covenan......
  • Central Estates (Beigravia) Ltd v Woolgar (No. 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 June 1972
    ..."the question remains: Quo anime was the act done". But that statement was explained by Mr. Justice Megaw in The Windmill Investments (London) Ltd. v. Milano Restaurant Ltd. (1962) 2 Q.B. 373. He said that it meant only that "it is a question of fact whether the money tendered is tendered a......
  • Gittens v Bernard
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • Invalid date
  • Pang Kau Chai @ Pang Hon Wah and another v Runway 80 Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 8 July 2022
    ...Pte Ltd v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2006] 1 SLR(R) 888 at [42]: In Windmill Investments (London) Ltd v Milano Restaurant Ltd [1962] 2 QB 373, rent was paid and the landlord’s receipt stated expressly that ‘This receipt is given without prejudice to the following breaches of covenant …’......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Land Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...1048 at 1052, 1054—1055, Davenport v The Queen(1877) 3 App Cas 115 at 132 and Windmill Investments (London) Ltd v Milano Restaurant Ltd [1962] 2 QB 373 at 376. In the result, neither the lease nor the settlement agreement was repudiated. Whether the exercise of an option for renewal was val......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT