Imagine Motion LTD Vn Kalex Ltd [2003]

Question 1

Basis

Answer 1

Rental Dispute regarding the return of the rental deposit and damages, recission of TA
D: HL

P: IML

Question 2

Provisional Tenancy Agreement

Answer 2

Including rent free period
(Clause 14)

29 November 1999

Question 3

Formal Tenancy Agreement

Answer 3

Term of Two years with a monthly rent of 2 years, monthly 27K

Dec 6 1999

Question 4

Unauthorised Structures

Answer 4

Buildings dept inspection found US at the premises, Defendant did not recognize them arguing it wasn’t their responsibility

4 Jan 2000

Question 5

Termination of TA

Answer 5

As a result of US, agreement was terminated with keys handed over to defendant

“Break Clause” not applicable

Feb 2000

Question 6

D case

Answer 6

Denies, accusations from P regarding mis rep

Question 7

Counterclaim

Answer 7

Counterlaim for loss of rental income
Wrongful repudiation of the TA, until 5 may 2001

405,000

Question 8

Defendant

Answer 8

108,000 awarded to D

Question 9

Final Judgement

Answer 9

25,200 to be paid to Defendant

Question 10

Plaintiff rep

Answer 10

Messrs & Co

Question 11

Defendant

Answer 11

Messrs & partners

Question 12

Misrepresentation

Answer 12

Regarding the premises ability to be “fit and suitable” to be used as a learning centre

Question 13

Defendant on misrep

Answer 13

Denied misrepresentation, emphasising that he did not disclose that he made any rep that premises would be fit for a learning centre and that there were no US

Question 14

As Is Meaning

Answer 14

Inspecting a property, what you see is what you get meaning as is is what you get