Where goods belonging to a former tenant (or third party) are left at a property following the expiry of a lease, the landlord will become an involuntary bailee of the goods. By following the procedures set out in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977), the tenant can be placed under an obligation to collect the goods and the landlord can obtain the power to sell any goods which

Is there a breach? The question is one of construction of the lease. Recently there has been, if not a sea-change, a shift in emphasis in the court's approach to the construction of contracts (including leases). In construing a contract, the court is concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean. See Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd. In Arnold v Britton (concerning leisure park chalet leases) the Supreme Court re-emphasised the importance of the words used by the parties. Contrary to a perceived trend in some recent cases, the court’s view of the business common sense behind

A lease, being a contract, is generally able to be varied by the parties by mutual agreement. This is done by a deed of variation so as to record the agreement to the variation. Most variations can be carried out without difficulty but certain intended variations take effect at law as a surrender and re-grant of the lease, on the basis that the intended variation is so inimical to the continuation of the existing lease that there must be deemed to be a fresh grant. This can have consequences including the need for further registration and the possibility of stamp duty land tax arising. The main circumstances in which a surrender and

Case study: A lease was completed several years ago, but the lease bears only one signature on behalf of the original tenant (in breach of the execution clause which requires signature by two directors, or one director and the company secretary). The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (as amended) requires different formalities to be observed depending on whether the contract is made by a company, or on behalf of a company. If the contract is made on behalf of the company then a person who is

We assume that there is a written tenancy agreement which reserves a certain rent and that there are no supplemental documents or agreements of any kind to that tenancy. If that is the case and the lease contains no rent review clause, the Landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent. For that to happen, the lease would have to be varied. When

Sections 12 and 13 and Schedule 1 to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977) set out a scheme by which a bailee of goods may acquire the right to sell the goods if they are not collected. The advantage of the scheme is that the bailee avoids liability for conversion or trespass to goods that might otherwise

The benefit of a right to light already acquired by the landlord at the date of grant of the lease (or in the process of being acquired by the landlord) can be passed to a tenant if section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), has not been excluded from the lease. LPA 1925, s 62

Section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) requires all conveyances of land, or of any interest in land, to be by deed. Conveyance is widely defined in LPA 1925, s 205 and includes transfers, leases, mortgages and charges. A lease for a term not exceeding three years to take effect in possession at the best rent which

The question of whether the demise of a first/top floor flat includes a demise of the roof space or attic above it will depend on the true construction of the lease. In the case of Hatfield v Moss the Court of Appeal concluded that the description in words of the second floor flat in conjunction with the fact that: • the only access to the roof space was from it • there was no reservation of rights over the roof space for the benefit of any other tenants or of the landlord • the roof itself was included within the demise, and • words were used in the lease which made it plain that the landlord was not intending

Where a liquidator disclaims a lease, the lease comes to an end (at least as far as the tenant is concerned). It is, however, deemed to continue for the purpose of keeping

Where a long residential lease is extended under section 56 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) and the freehold is subject to a Form N restriction in respect of a charge to the freeholder’s lenders, will the HM Land Registry require lender consent to be submitted in order for the lease extension to be registered notwithstanding that the lease extension is pursuant to statute? A restriction can be entered in the register and indicates that the proprietor's powers of disposition are fettered in some way. Its effect is to prevent the registration of a disposition, or to require certain steps to be taken before a disposition can be registered

A lease with a term commencement date in the future is often known as a reversionary lease, though the latter term in fact more accurately describes a lease which takes effect only when an existing lease of the relevant demise expires. Such a lease will often be used where the term of an existing lease is being extended, see Practice Note: Reversionary leases. A lease with a term commencement date after completion to a new tenant runs the risk of the creation of an equitable lease in the event that the tenant is allowed into occupation after completion