Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The original actions involving UK Leasing Brighton v Topland Neptune; Zinc Cobham 1 v Adda (  EWHC 53 (Ch)) found that various assignments to group companies were unlawful – they were completed without landlord’s consent.
The leases provided for the existing parent company guarantor to guarantee the assignee group company’s obligations. Following K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser  All ER (D) 262 (Jul) this was void under the Landlord and Tenant
(Covenants) Act 1995 ( LT(C)A 1995).
The leases vested in group company assignee (T2) who became liable under the tenant covenants in the lease but the assignment was in breach of covenant and the assignor (T1) and the guarantor (G) were not released under LT(C)A 1995 from their liabilities
in relation to the tenant covenants in the lease.
Both parties wanted to rewind the situation so that the leases were again vested in T1 with its obligations again guaranteed by G but disagreed on how to proceed:
The parties sought declaratory relief from the High Court as to how they should proceed.
T2 could assign directly to T1 with T1’s obligations being guaranteed by G.
T2 is released from the tenant covenants on assignment to T1-T1 is released from the tenant covenants entered into at the time the lease was granted to T1 (as this is a subsequent lawful assignment)-G is released from the earlier guarantee which it gave
as it is released to the same extent as T1 and on the re-assignment to T1, T1 again becomes bound by the tenant covenant. A re-imposed fresh guarantee by G did not frustrate the operation of LT(C)A 1995. It was analogous to the reasoning in K/S Victoria
Street – a guarantor can guarantee an assignor’s obligations under an AGA.
Although not necessary to do so, the court commented on the tenants’ proposal to assign the lease first to Newco and then to T1. The initial assignment to Newco would be permitted under LT(C)A 1995 . G would be released on the assignment to Newco
and could thereafter, on the subsequent assignment by Newco to T1 (just like any other assignee), enter into a guarantee in relation to that assignee. But if the landlord required to a binding commitment in the form of an agreement from Newco, T1
and G, prior to or as part of it giving consent to the assignment to Newco, that the further assignment to T1 would take place with a fresh guarantee being given by G, this would fall foul of LT(C)A 1995 as G will have agreed to commit itself
again as guarantor before it was released on assignment to Newco. Following K/S Victoria Street this would frustrate the operation of LT(C)A 1995.
The court also considered the scenario T2 assigning to G followed by an assignment by G to T1, guaranteed by a fresh guarantee from G without any commitment prior to the assignment to G that the assignment to T1 (and the fresh guarantee by G) would be
entered into. They did not think the fresh guarantee raised a problem as this could be an AGA. But an obiter (and somewhat tentative) remark in K/S Victoria Street that a lease could not be assigned to a guarantor - even where both the tenant and
the guarantor wanted it - raised a question mark as to whether assignment to G was possible. The court declined to consider the matter further as it had not been asked to rule on the point and would have required further argument.
This decision at gives parties a way out where there has been an unlawful assignment – they can reverse the assignment and reinstate the original guarantor without falling foul of K/S Victoria Street. For related articles on Purpose Built
see Has the court of appeal provided clarity on the construction of covenants against assignment to group companies? Subscribers to Lexis®PSL Property
can find a fuller review on the news feed on the PSLProperty landing page - Unravelling Tindall Cobham written by Joanna Bhatia, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL Property team first published on LexisPSL Property on 19 January 2015 2015. Otherwise, click
here for a free one week trial of Lexis®PSL Property.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Melissa Moore is a dual qualified in England and Wales and South African lawyer and has 14 years’ experience in property practice in England. She has worked in local government and been a partner at a regional law firm and most recently an associate director at Berwin Leighton Paisner which she joined in 2005. Melissa has wide experience in all areas of property law and specializes in commercial real estate development. She has experience in a number of sectors including hotel, leisure, offices, investment, industrial, motorway service stations and funding. She has worked on large scale strategic developments and government funding initiatives, town centre regeneration schemes and private mixed use developments both for public sector and private developers and investment funds. In 2013 she was ranked by Legal 500 as recommended for local government work.
0330 161 1234