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 part

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 section 75A FA 2003 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