A covenant prohibited the lessee from carrying on a number of unacceptable trades and activities but ended, ‘but will use the demised premises either for the business of high class retailers of jewellery and/or antiques and/or luxury goods and/or travel agency or recognised bank the authorised name of which includes the word ‘Bank”.
Held: The words in the covenant ‘were emphatic negative than positive in effect’.
Judges:
Mr Thomas Morison QC
Citations:
[1990] 2 EGLR 61
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Montross Associates Investments SA v Moussaieff CA 1992
A covenant prohibited the lessee from carrying on a number of unacceptable trades and activities but ended, ‘but will use the demised premises either for the business of high class retailers of jewellery and/or antiques and/or luxury goods and/or . .
Cited – Blumenthal v The Church Commissioners for England CA 13-Dec-2004
The respondent argued that the power given to the Lands Tribunal by the section, did not extend to a power to vary a positive covenant.
Held: It could not be right to construe the obligation in the lease as a positive obligation rendering the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.220274
