A covenant prohibited the lessee from carrying on a number of unacceptable trades and activities but ended, ‘but will use the demised premises either for the business of high class retailers of jewellery and/or antiques and/or luxury goods and/or travel agency or recognised bank the authorised name of which includes the word ‘Bank”.
Held: The appeal failed. There was no breach of the covenant whether it was positive or negative.
Citations:
[1992] 1 EGLR 55
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Montross Associates Investments SA v Moussaieff ChD 1990
A covenant prohibited the lessee from carrying on a number of unacceptable trades and activities but ended, ‘but will use the demised premises either for the business of high class retailers of jewellery and/or antiques and/or luxury goods and/or . .
Cited by:
Cited – Blumenthal v The Church Commissioners for England CA 13-Dec-2004
The respondent argued that the power given to the Lands Tribunal by the section, did not extend to a power to vary a positive covenant.
Held: It could not be right to construe the obligation in the lease as a positive obligation rendering the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.220275