The tenants occupied the building under subleases created out of a head lease which also included other land. They served a notice requiring new leases. The landlord objected that this envisaged not the grant of a new lease in substitution of the older lease, and also that the existing head lease would be left in place as regards the property not comprised in the building, and the notice would therefore require an amendment of that lease, for which there was no provision in the statute.
Held: The Act envisaged that such situations would indeed required the amendment of existing leases. The issue under the Act was first whether the tenants were qualifying tenants. The Act defined ‘qualifying tenants’ in terms which clearly applied to these tenants. Section 56(1)(a) could be read to provide that the new leases should stand in substitution for the existing leases to the extent of the premises. Any adjustment to the rent under the headlease could be settled by applying common law principles.
Judges:
David Donaldson QC
Citations:
Times 31-Mar-2005, [2005] EWHC 815 (Ch), [2005] 2 EGLR 71, [2005] 26 EG 132
Links:
Statutes:
Leasehold Reform and Urban Development Act 1993 43
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cadogan and others v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd, Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Aggio and others HL 25-Jun-2008
In each case all or part of a building was let by a head-lease and then as self-contained units under sub-leases. The head lessees had served notices under the 1993 Act requiring new leases. The freeholder denied that they were qualifying tenants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.223934