The Board considered an alleged breach of a covenant against assignment in a lease.
Held: The transfer to a newly formed company of the partnership business being conducted on the premises was a parting with possession. ‘A covenant which forbids a parting with possession is not broken by a lessee who in law retains the possession even though he allows another to use and occupy the premises.’ and ‘the words of the covenant must be strictly construed, since if the covenant is broken a forfeiture may result’.
Citations:
[1975] AC 247
Cited by:
Cited – Akici v LR Butlin Ltd CA 2-Nov-2005
The tenant appealed against forfeiture of his lease for breach of a qualified covenant against assignment. It was said that the tenant had attempted to hide from the landlord the assignment of the premises to his company or its shared occupation. . .
Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2009
The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.234407