Assignment and underletting

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 underleases. 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. Those 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. Covenants that restrict the tenant's ability to assign or underlet are construed against the landlord. Key principles to emerge from case law are:

  1. a covenant against assignment does not prohibit underletting

  2. a covenant against assignment or underletting of 'any part' of the premises prohibits assignment or underletting of the whole as well as part only

  3. a covenant 'not to underlet the premises' does not prohibit an underletting of part (Wilson v Rosenthal (1906) 22 TLR 233 (not reported by LexisNexis®))

  4. a covenant not

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

Insolvency, declarations of trust, loan agreements, artificial asset protection, sham transactions, transactions defrauding creditors, interspousal asset transfers, change of position defence and wife’s entitlement to share of husband’s assets (Sayers v Dixon)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that six declarations of trust (DoTs) executed by the transferor (Mr Dixon) in favour of his wife (Mrs Dixon) constituted transactions defrauding his creditors within the meaning of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and that two of them, purporting to transfer all his future assets and income to Mrs Dixon, along with an accompanying loan agreement, were shams which were void and ineffective. It set aside the DoTs and ordered Mrs Dixon to restore the value of three transferred properties (which had been converted into £551,589 cash) to Mr Dixon’s trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) together with interest of £101,726. It also ordered an account to be taken of the funds that had been transferred to Mrs Dixon or on her behalf by Mr Dixon over the seven years between the date of the DoTs and his bankruptcy. The court dismissed Mrs Dixon’s defence of change of position to the trustees’ claim for restoration, finding that even if such a defence were generally available (which is unclear), she had not acted in good faith and could not rely on it. It also dismissed her defence that, having been married to Mr Dixon for many years, she was entitled to half his assets and/or an entitlement to a share of them by virtue of a right to be maintained. Written by Jonathan Lopian, barrister at New Square Chambers, who acted for the successful claimants.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents