Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: ChD 11 Apr 2006

The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The landlord and the claimants and receivers agreed to look for a further assignee and therefore continued the business. By the time it was sold the arrears were much larger. The arrears were recovered from the claimants who now claimed under his indemnity. There had however been a rent review which was delayed. The defendant said that section 17 of the 1995 Act prevented the increase in rent being backdated more than six months, and that it need only indemnify the claimant for payment of sums for which it had an obligation to pay, and that the section 17 notices were incorrect.
Held: The rent was due at the date of its accrual, and not at the date upon which it could be demanded on completion of the review.
Mr Justice Hart
[2006] EWHC 821 (Ch), [2006] 4 All ER 524
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, Land Registration Act 1925 24(1)(b), Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (Notices) Regulations 1995 (SI No 1995/2964)
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 27-Jul-2004
The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant . .
See AlsoScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 24-Jul-2003
Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now . .
CitedAllied London Investments Ltd v Hambro Life Assurance Ltd (No 2) ChD 1984
The lessors sued the original lessees for rent due under the lease after the term had been assigned to another. The lessors had given a licence to assign and the licence contained a guarantee from a third party to the lessors that the assignee would . .
CitedUnited Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council HL 1978
The House was asked whether a failure by a lessor to keep strictly to the timetable laid down in a rent review clause in a lease necessarily deprived the lessor of the benefit of the rent review.
Held: A stipulation as to time in an option . .
CitedSouth Tottenham Land Securities Ltd v R and A Millett (Shops) Ltd CA 1984
The court considered on what date the increased rent determined by a rent review fell due for payment.
Held: O’Connor LJ refused the appeal: ‘If the parties choose to put into a lease that rent is due on quarter days, then there are good . .
CitedJervis v Harris CA 9-Nov-1995
A provision in the lease obliged a tenant to carry out repairs and provided that if he did not do so, the landlord might do the repairs and recover from the tenant the costs and expenses of doing so.
Held: The provision was not a penalty. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .
At First InstanceScottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.240344