The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual nature of the deal, it was not in law a surrender. Sub-tenants had no protection in such situations. The lacuna was recognised, but parliament had done nothing to provide any such protection. ‘I reject the proposition that the service of a notice to quit by either party by pre-arrangement with the other is ‘a consensual transaction which is tantamount to a surrender’ since unlike a surrender it does not need the consent of the recipient to be effective. The proposition that such a transaction is incapable of determining a sub-tenancy is not tenable and does not gain by the substitution of the pejorative word ‘collusive’ for the word ‘consensual’. ‘
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Millett
Times 28-Jan-2000, Gazette 10-Feb-2000, [2000] 2 WLR 285, [2000] UKHL 1, [2000] 2 AC 264, [2000] 1 All ER 481
House of Lords, Bailii
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Pennell v Payne CA 1995
The operation of the break clause in a lease will (in the absence of provision to the contrary) have the effect of terminating not just the lease but also the underlease, and any inferior sub-tenancies. . .
Appeal from – Barrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .
Cited – Webb v Russell 1789
The extinguishment of a tenancy by surrender extinguishes also the reversion to any sub-tenancy, so that the remedy for the rent and the covenants attached to the reversion cease with the reversion to which they were annexed. The sub-tenant held the . .
Cited – Baron Sherwood v Moody 1952
A head landlord can even by his own unilateral act in serving notice to quit on the head tenant bring a sub-tenancy to an end if the head tenant fails to serve a counter-notice under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. . .
Cited – Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another HL 29-Jul-1998
A tenancy which had been terminated by a notice given by one of the joint tenants had expired. It did not come to an end by any deed, and so was not capable of being set aside by a family court in the course of divorce proceedings. The possession . .
Cited – Rye v Rye HL 1962
Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his . .
Cited – Doe d Beadon v Pyke 1816
it was argued that a surrender of a lease would annihilate all interests derived under the lease.
Held: The argument failed. It was ‘clear law, that though a surrender operates between the parties as an extinguishment of the interest which is . .
Cited – Mellor v Watkins 1874
Allen held a yearly tenancy of premises subject to a yearly sub-tenancy of part. The sub-tenancy was afterwards acquired by the defendant. Allen surrendered his tenancy to the freeholder who re-let the premises to the plaintiff. Neither the tenancy . .
Cited – Phipos v G and B Callegari 1910
(Obiter) The service of an upwards notice to quit on a head landlord by a head tenant had the same effect on a sub-tenancy as a surrender. . .
Overruled – Sparkes v Smart 1990
A notice to quit was served by the head landlord in collusion with the head tenant. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Barrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .
Cited – PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD 8-Aug-2003
The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .
Cited – Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
Cited – Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture, Constitutional
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.159035