An office buidling had a toughened glass cladding. When a cladding plate slipped and fell, the local authority issed a dangerous structures notice. The landlord served a notice to use the Act to divest himself of responsibility for repairs.
Held: For a lease covenant to be subject to the Act, whether for the landlord or tenant, with the effect that that party was released on an assignment by a successor, the covenant had to be transmissible and not personal. Only covenants therefore enforceable against the current tenant or current landlord were covered and if it was one ‘falling to be complied with by the landlord’, such person being ‘the person for the time being entitled to the reversion expectant on the term of the tenancy’. Though the covenant was contained in a separate document, it remained for these purposes a covenant within the Act, and capable of being subject to its provisions. Here the landlord was not released.
Judges:
Lightman J
Citations:
Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 30-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 277, [2001] EGCS 31, [2001] 2 All ER 914, [2002] Ch 12
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 8 28
Citing:
Appealed to – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another CA 30-Nov-2001
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another CA 30-Nov-2001
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects . .
Cited – First Penthouse Limited/Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited/Fahad Al Tamimi First Penthouse Limited Varlet International Limited Ruth Gary Orbach Quallvile Limited Norval Holdings Limited ChD 14-Nov-2003
Several transactions had taken place with regard to a lease of a roof void, which was to be developed for penthouses. The lease had been charged to secure funding. The development did not proceed to schedule, and a s146 notice was served. It was . .
Cited – London Diocesan Fund and others v Avonridge Property Company Ltd and Phithwa HL 1-Dec-2005
The defendant had taken on a lease of a parade of shops, and sub-let each shop for a full premium at a nominal rent. It sought to limit its own liability to pay the head rent by limiting the covenant in the sub-leases to pay the head rent to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78384