Insurance and leases

Who insures?

Where property is let, the landlord will usually be responsible for arranging insurance of the building, whilst recovering the cost of that insurance from the tenant(s). The landlord will clearly need to insure where the lease is of part only of a building, but even in the case of a lease of the whole of a single building the landlord may well prefer to retain control of the insurance so as to be sure that the building is fully covered at all times.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Insurance issues for tenants — Who insures?.

Where the landlord insures, it is advisable to include specific tenant covenants:

  1. against insuring the building (to avoid the risk of double insurance and the possible effect this might have on the recovery of insurance monies under the landlord's policy)

  2. not to do, or fail to do, anything which would lead to the landlord's insurance becoming void or voidable

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Insurance—non-vitiation (non-invalidation) clauses.

Policies usually include a 'noted interest' clause which entitles tenants to be notified of any claim, or

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents