Image from Google Jackets

Coronation Street Industrial Properties Ltd v Ingall Industries plc

Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 139(6400) 24 March 1989, 401-402(2)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: HL 16 March 1989 In August 1972 the tenant (T) was granted a lease of industrial premises and performance of T`s covenant s were guaranteed by the surety (I). The lease further provided that in the event of T going into liquidation and the lease being disclaimed I "hereby covenants with the lessor that it will accept ... a lease of the demised premises" for the unexpired residue of the lease and on the same terms and conditions except for the surety conditions. In 1984 T went into voluntary liquidation and the liquidators disclaimed the lease. The landlords (C) gave notice to I calling on it to take a lease of the unexpired term. I refused to enter into a new tenancy and C brought proceedings to enforce I`s covenant to accept a new tenancy. On appeal by I, HL held that the covenant by I is a covenant which runs with the land and is enforceable by C against I. Appeal accordingly dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40632 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 25138-1001

HL 16 March 1989 In August 1972 the tenant (T) was granted a lease of industrial premises and performance of T`s covenant s were guaranteed by the surety (I). The lease further provided that in the event of T going into liquidation and the lease being disclaimed I "hereby covenants with the lessor that it will accept ... a lease of the demised premises" for the unexpired residue of the lease and on the same terms and conditions except for the surety conditions. In 1984 T went into voluntary liquidation and the liquidators disclaimed the lease. The landlords (C) gave notice to I calling on it to take a lease of the unexpired term. I refused to enter into a new tenancy and C brought proceedings to enforce I`s covenant to accept a new tenancy. On appeal by I, HL held that the covenant by I is a covenant which runs with the land and is enforceable by C against I. Appeal accordingly dismissed.