Murphy v Sawyer-Hoare and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (9327) 10 July 1993, 127-129(3)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: ChD 23 September 1992. M granted premises to a firm who later assigned it to S. The second defendant was party to the licence as surety, and when the defendant went into liquidation, was called upon by M, in accordance with the licence terms, to take a new lease on the property. However, a disclaimer had been issued by the liquidator some weeks previously. M obtained a judgment for rent arrears from the date of disclaimer. On appeal the second defendant argued that the disclaimer`s effect was to free him from liability and that M was not entitled to include a rent review clause in the new lease implementing an earlier review from the orginal lease. "Held" in the defendant`s favour.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS48997 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 69404-1001 |
ChD 23 September 1992. M granted premises to a firm who later assigned it to S. The second defendant was party to the licence as surety, and when the defendant went into liquidation, was called upon by M, in accordance with the licence terms, to take a new lease on the property. However, a disclaimer had been issued by the liquidator some weeks previously. M obtained a judgment for rent arrears from the date of disclaimer. On appeal the second defendant argued that the disclaimer`s effect was to free him from liability and that M was not entitled to include a rent review clause in the new lease implementing an earlier review from the orginal lease. "Held" in the defendant`s favour.