Click the case name for better results:

NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd: ChD 16 Jul 2004

The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting. Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and the proposed sub-tenant. The tenant would remain liable for rent and repairs as before. The … Continue reading NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd: ChD 16 Jul 2004

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd: ChD 10 Apr 1997

The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed. Held: The 1988 Act did not make clear that a tenant faced with a delay could nevertheless complete the assignment. … Continue reading Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd: ChD 10 Apr 1997

Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd: ChD 1 Apr 1998

The plaintiff was tenant of premises under a lease granted by the defendant’s predecessor in title. He vacated the premises in July 1996, and on 17 November 1997 wrote asking the defendant for a licence to sublet them to a pet shop business. The plaintiff enclosed the proposed subtenant’s accounts with the application. On 20 … Continue reading Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd: ChD 1 Apr 1998

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd: ChD 1999

Shopmoor’s predecessors demised premises for 150 years at a yearly rent of andpound;100 on payment of a premium. A covenant provided that the tenant was not to assign or sublet without the landlord’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. In April 1996 Norwich Union contracted to sale of the lease, conditional on a … Continue reading Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd: ChD 1999

Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran: HL 16 Dec 1987

The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the Convention. Held: When deciding whether an asylum applicant’s fear of persecution was … Continue reading Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran: HL 16 Dec 1987