Brown v Wilson: 1949

A subtenant’s lease is not protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act where the head lease is terminated by the landlord, but if the head tenant determines his own tenancy the sub-tenancy is protected and will be promoted in his stead: ‘the law will not allow a man, by an act done between him and another, to impair or destroy the rights which he has granted to a third party.’

Hilbery J
[1950] EG 45, (1949) 208 LT 144
Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, Law of Property Act 1925 139
England and Wales
CitedPhipos 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. . .

Cited by:
OverruledPennel v Payne and Another CA 13-Dec-1994
An upwards notice to quit given by the head tenant allows the Head Landlord also to determine the sub-tenancy. This is the case whether or not the subtenancy was granted within the terms of the headlease. . .
CitedBarrett 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.182060