Whether a covenant has been breached will depend upon the specific circumstances and the particular wording of the lease covenant. Assigning underletting, parting with or sharing possession Assignment A covenant 'not to assign' or 'not to assign or otherwise part with' the premises is only broken by a legal assignment for the entire residue of the term (Gentle v Faulkner). Therefore, if an occupant is given exclusive possession but there is no legal assignment for the entire term the covenant would not be broken. See Commentary: Covenants against assignment or parting with possession: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [1] . Underletting A covenant against underletting is broken whenever the tenant parts

Although an assignment of a tenancy must be by deed, the licence to assign granted by the landlord is not required to be by deed, unless the lease

Any notice required or authorised to be served or given under the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) must be in writing. In relation to the location and manner of service of any notices, LPA 1925, s 196(3) and (4) provide: ‘(3) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor,

It has been assumed that there is no term in the lease specifying the time at which the tenant must give up vacant possession of the property when the lease expires through efflux of time. Most modern leases contain an express covenant on the part of the tenant to yield up possession of the property on the determination of the term. However, in the absence of such an express covenant or other express stipulation,

This question raises the issue of what can be done when an executed document fails to accurately reflect the agreement that the parties had reached. Where a tenant entered into a lease on the basis of a statement by the landlord’s agent that they would not be responsible for electricity charges at the property, other than through the service charge, but the lease mistakenly makes them liable for those charges, what can be done? Pre-contractual negotiations cannot be used as an aid to interpretation of a contract. The statement from the agent therefore cannot be admitted in evidence as

The stamp duty land tax (SDLT) rules that apply when a tenant holds over a lease are complex. In particular, the rules have been amended since SDLT was first introduced in 2003 and different rules can apply to particular scenarios with different results. The rules are contained in Schedule 17A to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003). The holding over period FA 2003, Sch 17A, para 3 applies to leases which continue after a fixed term. The tenant has an obligation to recalculate the SDLT due on the lease as if the lease was a fixed term lease for its original

An assignment of a lease in breach of covenant is nevertheless a valid assignment: Old Grovebury Manor Farm Ltd v W Seymour Plant Sales and Hire Ltd (No 2). Therefore, assuming the assignment has been registered (if required) the assignee is now the tenant. Note, that the assignor is likely to remain liable on the lease covenants despite

In order for a lease to be valid at law, it must be in writing and executed as a deed (section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925)). LPA 1925, s 54(2) provides for certain exceptions, such as a lease for a term not exceeding three years, including periodic tenancies. In this scenario, given that the lease has been executed, it can be assumed that the lease falls within LPA 1925, s 52(1). By section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), a company may make a contract by writing under its common seal or a contract can be made on its behalf by a person acting under its authority, express or

In this scenario, it appears that a tenant has the benefit of a call option for the grant of a lease of land outside the current demise but various problems have arisen which will make it difficult or undesirable for the landlord to grant the new lease. For commentary in relation to call options generally, see Practice Note: Call options—land. In assessing

One of the ways in which a lease can come to an end is surrender by operation of law (sometimes called implied surrender). A surrender by operation of law will occur where a tenant takes a new lease from their landlord to begin during the term of the old lease. See Commentary: Surrender by operation of law: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [4321]. A surrender by operation

The first thing to note is that although the tenant could have granted a sublease of the flat, keeping a reversionary interest expectant on the termination of the sublease, they did not do so. Had they done so, the terms of the lease in so far as they are related to the garage could have been varied by a deed if variation as, although there would be two registered leasehold titles, one would relate to the lease and one to the

The case of Lankester & Son v Rennie and another may assist. Here, the defendants entered into a lease with Lankester and, subsequently, moved out of the premises having found another company, TCA, who were to take an assignment of the lease. TCA began trading from the premises. The landlord accepted rent from TCA but no formal assignment was completed. Lankester then sought to recover arrears of rent from