For the purposes of this Q&A, we have assumed that the lease referred to is a commercial one and is a ‘new’ lease for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995). From a practical point of view, a landlord would usually want the ability to consent to a particular assignment at the time as there may be issues as to covenant strength. Without prejudice to whether the provision is viable, an Authorised Guarantee Agreement (AGA) from an outgoing tenant which comprises the same individuals less one of them would not take matters any further if there was a concern. See Practice Note: Landlord's consent to assign or underlet for more information. Aside from this, the LT(C)A 1995 provides that a tenant is released on any lawful assignment unless it is lawfully

For the purposes of this Q&A we have assumed that while the solar equipment has been installed on the roof (the demise), the lease itself authorises the installation of ancillary apparatus within the landlord’s property (outside of the demise). We also assume that the lease grants the tenant rights to maintain, inspect and repair apparatus installed outside of the demise. This Q&A considers the extent of the rights in the lease and how to enforce them. Extent of rights The extent of the rights to access the landlord’s property in order to repair and maintain the apparatus will be governed by the terms of the

It is not uncommon for trustees to seek to limit their liability on a contractual basis, such as by a clause within a lease. Primarily, this is because the trustees may be personally liable for any sum claimed against them, and, although they are entitled in most circumstances to an indemnity from the assets of the trust, this indemnity is clearly only available up to the assets of the trust. Trustees therefore wish to protect themselves from having to make up the shortfall. This is particularly common where professional or corporate trustees are involved. A prospective tenant must consider carefully whether or

Where the lease is protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), it is possible to specify that the landlord may exercise a break option if it intends to demolish or redevelop the property. However, as per the Drafting Notes in the above Precedent: ‘If the tenant has protection under Part II of the 1954 Act, service of a contractual notice to exercise a break clause will (if it meets the contractual conditions) end the contractual term of the lease, but not the tenancy. The tenancy continues unless and until brought to an end by one of the methods specified in the 1954

Whether the court will order the terms of a side letter to be included in a renewed lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) will depend on all the circumstances. Under LTA 1954, s 32(3), the court may include ‘rights enjoyed by the tenant in connection with the holding’. This will include easements enjoyed with the premises,

The starting point is to consider what the user provision is under the hypothetical lease in the rent review clause. The hypothetical lease might be on the basis of: • a lease containing the same terms as the actual lease, including use • alternatively, it may make provision for a lease with wider use clause, in which case both the permitted use and the actual use may fall within the wider use clause In the event that the rent review clause is silent as to use under the hypothetical lease, it will be inferred that the hypothetical lease is to contain the same user restriction as the actual lease. See: Other terms: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [1990]–[2000]. In terms

It is common for a lease of premises to contain a covenant preventing the tenant from making structural or other alterations. Such a covenant may be absolute or may be qualified so as to require the consent of the landlord. Additionally, the consent qualification may provide for that consent not to be unreasonably withheld (and

When a (head) lease is forfeited, any underlease granted out of that lease will also end automatically. For further information, see Practice Note: What happens to an underlease on termination of the lease? Statute does not oblige the head landlord to give the undertenant an opportunity to cure the breach which provoked the forfeiture nor to serve a copy of any section 146 notice (where one is required as between the head landlord and the tenant) on the undertenant.

Subject to the exact terms of the life interest trust, some of the ways it can potentially be brought to an end to put the property in the name of the remainderman are as follows: • the life tenant could surrender their interest and accelerate the interests of the remainder beneficiary/beneficiaries to bring a trust to an end (whether this will bring the trust to an end immediately will depend on the precise wording of the trust document) • the rule in Saunders v Vautier is a

Disclaimer by the life tenant This Q&A envisages that the life tenant has already validly disclaimed their life interest. The consequences of a disclaimer are as follows: • the disclaimer must be absolute and the disclaiming beneficiary cannot retain any benefit. One gift can be disclaimed (eg a legacy) and another retained (eg a share in residue) • the disclaimed benefit falls back into residue and is distributed in accordance with the devolution of the estate • the disclaimer can subsequently be retracted provided no person has altered their position in reliance on the disclaimer Generally, see Practice Note: Failure of gifts—disclaimer and acceptance. Deeds of variation Unlike a disclaimer, a deed of variation can redirect the beneficial interests under the

When administering a trust, and in particular considering the distribution of assets, it is the duty of the trustee to ascertain those entitled. This is usually a matter of construction. So, in relation to an express trust, the extent of the interest taken by a beneficiary is a matter of the intention of the settlor as expressed in the trust instrument. Where the trust instrument directs an interest in capital for the purposes of benefiting a person of full capacity in some specified manner, subject to words of limitation in the trust, it confers on that beneficiary an absolute, vested interest in the capital. It gives that beneficiary the right to call for a transfer of the property. Where that

The capital gains degrouping charge analysis on a liquidation demerger will depend on precisely how that transaction is structured. Depending on the facts, it may be that a ‘Liquidation Holdco’ to whom a demerging business has been hived up does not leave the capital gains group whilst holding the hived-up business assets, as is required for a charge to arise under section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992). This would be because those assets are transferred to a ‘Newco’ on the liquidation. In such a case, no degrouping charge would arise. However, as explained in Practice Note: Liquidation demergers, in other cases, for instance where a demerging business is hived down to a newly-formed subsidiary (Company Y) under the target company, and then Company Y is hived up to a ‘Liquidation Holdco’, a degrouping charge could arise in Company Y