Breaking all the rules
Series: Property Week ; 68(7) 21 February 2003, 32-33(2)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: Raises a number of important issues concerning the application of break clauses in leases. Advises landlords to ensure that all conditions in a lease have been complied with, "Commercial Union Life Assurance Co v Label Ink" (ChD unreported) provides guidance on what is 'material' for the purpose of break clauses and emphasises the importance of responding promptly to the serving of notices. Reminds tenants of the importance of the timing of notices, explains when a break clause is not a break and looks at vacant possession. Concludes with a discussion of "Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and another" (CA Abs66452) concerning the unreasonable refusal of consent for the assignment of a lease by a landlord.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66535 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121866-1001 |
Raises a number of important issues concerning the application of break clauses in leases. Advises landlords to ensure that all conditions in a lease have been complied with, "Commercial Union Life Assurance Co v Label Ink" (ChD unreported) provides guidance on what is 'material' for the purpose of break clauses and emphasises the importance of responding promptly to the serving of notices. Reminds tenants of the importance of the timing of notices, explains when a break clause is not a break and looks at vacant possession. Concludes with a discussion of "Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and another" (CA Abs66452) concerning the unreasonable refusal of consent for the assignment of a lease by a landlord.