PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants): ChD 8 Aug 2003

The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express provision.
Held: The express preservation of the sub-lease allowed the sub-lease to continue. As to whether an estoppel would bind a successor: ‘If that is correct, then it appears to support the conclusion that a subtenant is also bound, at least provided his subtenancy does not predate the coming into being of the convention. In my judgment, an estoppel, and therefore a convention, which unambiguously relates to the relationship of landlord and tenant, and can only fairly work if it extends to the tenant, will generally do so, particularly if the subtenant had notice of it. In the present case, the convention is very much tied to the landlord and tenant relationship and relates directly to the underleases.’ If the premises comprised in a subletting are occupied by the subtenant for the purposes of a business carried on by it, it would have the protection of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and could therefore only be removed by following the procedures under that Act.


Mr Justice Neuberger


Gazette 09-Oct-2003, [2004] Ch 142, [2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch)




Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II


England and Wales


AppliedPennell v Payne CA 1995
The operation of the break clause in a lease will (in the absence of provision to the contrary) have the effect of terminating not just the lease but also the underlease, and any inferior sub-tenancies. . .
CitedBarrett and others v Morgan HL 27-Jan-2000
The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual . .
CitedWebb v Russell 1789
The extinguishment of a tenancy by surrender extinguishes also the reversion to any sub-tenancy, so that the remedy for the rent and the covenants attached to the reversion cease with the reversion to which they were annexed. The sub-tenant held the . .
CitedRe Stirrup’s Contract 1961
The parties disputed whether good title had been shown when an assent under seal had been used where a conveyance ordinarily should have been used.
Held: Good title had been shown. Though the law is concerned with substance rather than form, . .
ConsideredStreet v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .

Cited by:

CitedErnst Kastner v Marc Jason, Davis Sherman, Brigitte Sherman CA 2-Dec-2004
The parties had agreed that their dispute should be resolved before the Jewish Beth Din according to Jewish substantive and procedural law. K was granted an interim freezing order. The defendant sold the asset, and K sought to assert a charge.
CitedLegal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Expeditors International (Uk) Ltd CA 24-Jan-2007
Leases contained break clauses which the tenant purported to exercise. The landlord replied that they were ineffective because the tenant had not complied with his repair covenants. The dispute appeared settled after negotiations, and the settlement . .
CitedSmith v Skanska Construction Services Ltd QBD 29-Jul-2008
The court considered whether the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal road accident in Thailand was driving within the authority of the UK employers. The driver was not an employee but had authority to use company vehicles for tasks for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.190568