Parkus v Greenwood: ChD 1950

In the lease, the landlord agreed to grant a further lease: ‘for a further term of three years from the expiration of the said term at the same rent and containing the like agreements and provisions as are herein contained, including the present covenant for renewal’
Held: Harman J said: ‘Mr Albery . . pointed out that in the old conveyancing precedents these words were used to create a perpetual right to renew and that a careful conveyancer if he wished to avoid trouble and did not wish to have it said that there might be such a perpetual right, would use the opposite words, namely ‘excluding this present covenant’. All that I accept; none the less, in my judgment, this part of the Act only operates to create a term of 2,000 years where the lease is on the face of it perpetually renewable. You have to find expressly in the lease or agreement a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal. I do not find any such covenant here. All I find is a covenant for renewal once.’


Harman J


[1950] Ch 33


Law of Property Act 1922


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMarjorie Burnett Ltd v Barclay ChD 12-Dec-1980
A lease was created of a shop, dwellings and out-buildings. By clause 6 the tenant had a right to renew the lease, with the new lease creating the same provision. The defendant claimed that as a perpetually renewable lease it took effect as a lease . .
Appeal fromParkus v Greenwood CA 2-Jan-1950
The tenant appealed a finding that his lease did not contain a clause making it a perpetually renewable lease.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was in fact an express covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.259708