Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster was a legal case between Westminster City Council and Sir Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster heard in November 1990. The dispute concerned 532 flats in Page Street, Vincent Street and Regency Street, Pimlico, London. These had been designed by architect Sir Edwin Lutyens and erected between 1928-30 for Hugh Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of Westminster. In 1937 the Duke assigned the properties - for a peppercorn rent of 1 shilling - to the council on a 999-year lease with the stipulation that they be used only as "dwellings for the working classes... and no other purpose."Westminster council argued that the term "working class" was now meaningless and that the stipulation should be overturned, allowing them to sell the leaseholds of the flats to anyone, against the present duke's wishes. The Duke maintained that the properties should remain available as low-rent accommodation for those who could not afford to purchase leaseholds. The case was dubbed Westminster v Westminster by the media.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Westminster_City_Council_v_Duke_of_Westminster abstract "Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster was a legal case between Westminster City Council and Sir Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster heard in November 1990. The dispute concerned 532 flats in Page Street, Vincent Street and Regency Street, Pimlico, London. These had been designed by architect Sir Edwin Lutyens and erected between 1928-30 for Hugh Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of Westminster. In 1937 the Duke assigned the properties - for a peppercorn rent of 1 shilling - to the council on a 999-year lease with the stipulation that they be used only as "dwellings for the working classes... and no other purpose."Westminster council argued that the term "working class" was now meaningless and that the stipulation should be overturned, allowing them to sell the leaseholds of the flats to anyone, against the present duke's wishes. The Duke maintained that the properties should remain available as low-rent accommodation for those who could not afford to purchase leaseholds. The case was dubbed Westminster v Westminster by the media.".