Dellneed Ltd and Another v Chin
Dellneed Ltd and Another v Chin
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 281 (6320) 7 February 1987, 531-539 (5) .
ChD 25 June 1986. Action concerning leasehold premises which were the site of a chinese restaurant . The point of issue was whether a document between the leaseholder and the restaurant operator granted a tenancy. The document was described as a licence creating a "management agreement" and specifically stating that"nothing in it shall be construed as creating a legal demise" and that "this agreement confers no tenancy. The ChD held that the document did in fact confer on the restauranteur exclusive possession but was intended to mislead, the leaseholder being anxious to avoid any indication of subletting or parting with possession which might have led to any action by his superior landlord based on the breach of covenant. The agreement had the ingredients mentioned in Street v Mountford to constitute a tenancy, namely, the grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent and the judge rejected that the circumstances in this case were an exception. Accordingly, the operators of the
BUSINESS TENANCIES
LEASES
ChD 25 June 1986. Action concerning leasehold premises which were the site of a chinese restaurant . The point of issue was whether a document between the leaseholder and the restaurant operator granted a tenancy. The document was described as a licence creating a "management agreement" and specifically stating that"nothing in it shall be construed as creating a legal demise" and that "this agreement confers no tenancy. The ChD held that the document did in fact confer on the restauranteur exclusive possession but was intended to mislead, the leaseholder being anxious to avoid any indication of subletting or parting with possession which might have led to any action by his superior landlord based on the breach of covenant. The agreement had the ingredients mentioned in Street v Mountford to constitute a tenancy, namely, the grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent and the judge rejected that the circumstances in this case were an exception. Accordingly, the operators of the
BUSINESS TENANCIES
LEASES