Assignment and underletting

Restrictions on alienation

Forms of alienation covenant

In the absence of any provision in the lease to the contrary, a tenant has the right to assign its interest in the lease and to create subleases. It is, however, a rare lease which does not restrict the tenant's freedom in this respect. Restrictions on alienation generally take the form of covenants on the part of the tenant prohibiting certain types of dealing. Such prohibitions may be 'absolute', 'qualified' or 'fully qualified' in form.

An absolute covenant (one that prohibits an action without allowing for landlord’s consent) is a complete bar if it covers the proposed transaction.

A qualified covenant prohibits a transaction without the landlord’s consent (but without requiring that the consent should not be unreasonably withheld). However, section 19(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 imports that requirement into any covenant that requires landlord’s consent for assigning, underletting, charging or parting with possession and applies ‘notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary’. Such covenants are therefore ‘fully qualified’.

In addition, qualified covenants in certain building leases are of no effect

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—22 January 2026

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: in relation to the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 publication of draft regulations providing details of the written statement and information sheet and commencement regulations which bring into force provisions relating to discrimination in the private rental sector in Wales, Court of Appeal decisions examining whether advertising rights at major railway stations should be classified as separate hereditaments for business rate purposes and whether mixed-use properties qualify as dwellings for service charge protections, a High Court decision concerning deferment of sales by trustees in bankruptcy, and First-tier Tribunal decisions on dispensation from service charge consultation requirements and Right to Manage claims. It also includes the first publication of the MHCLG’s Building Safety Newsletter underlining the government priority to improve the building safety, the launch of the Sentencing Council’s consultation on proposed housing offence sentencing guidelines and the release of the Senior President of Tribunals’ annual report for 2025.

MHCLG publishes first Building Safety Newsletter outlining 2026 priorities

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has published the first edition of its Building Safety Newsletter, setting out legislative and policy developments, regulation information and news for residents as part of its work to improve the building safety system. The newsletter includes a foreword from the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy, confirming that building safety remains a fundamental priority for the government and that creating lasting changes to ensure everyone feels safe in their home will be a focus for 2026. It also highlights collaboration and consultation with residents, the construction sector, local authorities and fire and rescue services as central to improving standards and transparency.

UK Judiciary releases Senior President of Tribunals’ annual report for 2025

The Right Honourable Lord Justice James Dingemans, Senior President of Tribunals, has published his 2025 annual report, setting out priorities for reducing backlogs, advancing digitisation, improving transparency and strengthening the One Judiciary and inclusion agenda. In his first report since taking office in August 2025, he reflects on rising caseloads across multiple chambers, steps to improve listing practices and judicial capacity, ongoing work to address judicial security concerns, and the continuing development of digital processes following the end of the HMCTS Reform Programme. He acknowledges the contribution of his predecessor, Sir Keith Lindblom, and includes updates from the Presidents of the Upper Tribunal, First-tier Tribunal, Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal on notable cases, operational changes, diversity initiatives and leadership movements across their jurisdictions.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News