翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Prudent avoidance principle ・ Prudent Beaudry ・ Prudent Carpentier ・ Prudent Investment Rule ・ Prudent Joye ・ Prudent man rule ・ Prudente ・ Prudente de Moraes Neto ・ Prudente de Morais ・ Prudente de Morais, Minas Gerais ・ Prudential ・ Prudential (Guaranty) Building ・ Prudential (MBTA station) ・ Prudential Assurance Building ・ Prudential Assurance Building, Liverpool ・ Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body ・ Prudential Bank Limited ・ Prudential borrowing ・ Prudential BSN Takaful ・ Prudential capital controls ・ Prudential Center ・ Prudential Center (disambiguation) ・ Prudential Family Playhouse ・ Prudential Financial ・ Prudential Headquarters ・ Prudential Overall Supply ・ Prudential plc ・ Prudential Property Investment Managers ・ Prudential Regulation Authority ・ Prudential Regulation Authority (United Kingdom) Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body ： ウィキペディア英語版 Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body ''Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body'' () (UKHL 10 ) is an English land law case, concerning leases. ==Facts== Mr Nathan owned 263-265 Walworth Rd, Southwark, London before 1930, and the London City Council the road. It planned to widen it, encroaching on a strip of land separating his shop from the road. The LCC bought the freehold of the strip, but agreed he could use it until the project went ahead, and he would pay £30 a year in rent ‘until the strip of land is needed for road-widening’. But by 1988 the road had not been widened and the London Residuary Body, successor of the LCC held it. Prudential Assurance Ltd now held the strip and LRB wished to end Prudential’s right to use the strip. Valuers put the strip at £10,000 a year. Prudential argued it could not get possession because there was no road widening yet. Millett LJ found in favour of Prudential. LRB used the leapfrog procedure to go directly to the House of Lords, as it wished to challenge the Court of Appeal cases, ''In re Midland Railway Co’s Agreement'' and ''Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold''. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.