In the absence of any restriction, the tenant is free to underlet as it pleases. For further information see Practice Note:

We are not aware of any authority on this specific point. In the context of service charge recovery, a landlord cannot recover the cost of items which are not clearly included in the lease and which are of no benefit to the tenants. The list of services must be comprehensive as 'sweeper' clauses are likely to be narrowly construed against the landlord and will not allow the landlord to recover an item of expenditure (eg a 10% management fee) that has clearly been omitted from the list set out in the lease. See Catch-all Provisions: Butterworths Property Law Service [797] and Commercial service charges—what expenses can the landlord

The scope of a landlord’s express right of entry is a question of construction. Leases commonly contain a term entitling the landlord to enter the demised premises in order ‘to view’, or ‘examine’, or ‘inspect’, its state and condition. It is doubtful whether a right to carry out ‘surveys’ goes any further. The noun ’survey’ can mean ‘an examination’ as well as ‘an inspection’ (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary); but does not necessarily carry with a sense of carrying out physical investigation of land or buildings. Furthermore, none of these expressions has been the subject of any helpful authority or discussion regarding their ambit. On a related note, it may be said

A claim for dilapidations is a claim against a tenant arising out of the state of premises, arising out of a covenant to maintain and repair. It is assumed for the purpose of this answer that such a covenant exists and as a result there is the prospect of a claim for dilapidations. The basis of such a claim is to compensate the landlord by putting him back in the position that he would have been in but for the breach. As a result the measure of damages is the cost of carrying out the works which the tenant was obliged pursuant to the terms of the tenancy to maintain and repair the property: Joyner v Weeks. This is subject to the statutory cap imposed

Yes, provided that the lease exceeds three years. See Practice Note: Land registration—notices and priority under the Land Registration Act 2002, which provides: ‘The interests which can, and should, be protected by a notice include: • restrictive covenants relating to a freehold

Since 13 October 2003, subject to certain exceptions, it has become compulsory to register the grant of a lease for a term of seven years or more out of unregistered or registered land (section 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002)). A failure to register the lease will mean that only an equitable, rather than a legal interest will have been granted, pursuant to LRA 2002, s 27. For further guidance, see: Land registration—overview. Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides that LTA 1954, Pt II applies to: ‘…any tenancy where

In circumstances where there has been an express grant of a right of way, the extent of that grant will depend on the construction of the lease. This is in contrast to an easement which arises by implied grant or prescription, whereby focus will be upon the actual use of the land. A court tasked with consideration of the extent of an express grant will also undertake a consideration of that grant, based upon the circumstances and intentions of the parties at the time of the grant. This exercise was succinctly stated by Moore-Bick LJ in the case of ETG Developments Ltd v Noah (at paragraph 12): ‘The primary task of the court in a case of this kind is to construe the grant itself. But it is common ground that, in doing so, the court is entitled to take into account not only the language

Under section 23 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) the protection of LTA 1954 extends to any tenancy where the property comprised in it is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant for the purposes of a business which it carries on or for those and other purposes. If the tenancy has the protection of the LTA 1954, then as a result of LTA 1954, s 24 it can only be brought to an end in accordance with its provisions. LTA 1954, s 38 contains restrictions upon the parties contracting out of that protection. LTA 1954, s 38(1) provides that any agreement, whether contained in the instrument contained in the tenancy or not, which purports to preclude the tenant from making an application or request for a new tenancy shall be void. However, LTA 1954, s 38A(1) makes

It is assumed that this Q&A relates to measures under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022). Separately from this, and not covered within this response, the buyer’s conveyancer will of course raise the usual enquiries and conduct the usual due diligence necessary on the assignment of a lease. Under BSA 2022, Sch 8, para 2 no service charge is payable under a lease (including a non-residential lease in England) of premises in a relevant building in respect of a relevant measure relating to a relevant defect if the relevant landlord (the landlord under the lease at the qualifying time or any superior landlord at that time) was responsible for the relevant defect. A ‘relevant building’ is defined in BSA 2022, s 117(2) (subject

Where a headlease is disclaimed, the subtenant continues to have the right to occupy and must pay the rent and comply with the covenants under the headlease. The effect of sections 178(4) and 315(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (depending on whether the headlessor is a company or an individual) is to bring to an end the rights and obligations of the immediate parties to the lease but does not affect the rights or liabilities of any other person. Although the headlease has ceased to exist it is deemed to continue in respect of the rights and liabilities of third parties such as subtenants. The landlord is not able to enforce the tenant covenants

It is not possible to grant a sublease for an 11-term as an underlease that is granted for as long, or longer, than the original lease operates as an assignment and not as an underlease. Consequently, an underlease must be for at least one day less than the original lease to avoid the underlease taking effect as an assignment: Milmo v Carreras. For further discussion, see: Remedies for breach of the covenant: Hill and Redmans Law of Landlord and Tenant [1403] and also Practice Note: Underlease taking effect as assignment. Interestingly, it seems that the terms of present

In certain circumstances, conduct that is inconsistent with the continuation of a lease may constitute a deemed surrender and regrant in certain circumstances. This deemed surrender and regrant will be effective irrespective of the intentions of the parties to the lease. The Court of Appeal in Friends