The domino effect
Murdoch, S.
The domino effect - 2004 - Estates Gazette (0444) 30 October 2004, 151(1) .
Considers "PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), Abs67644) which upheld the rule established in "Pennell v Payne" (CA, Abs52308) as upheld by "Barrett v Morgan" (HL, Abs61966) whereby the service of a notice to quit or a break notice will terminate not only the subject lease but also any sub-tenancies created out of that lease. A sublease will only survive if the termination of the sub-tenancy is by way of a consensual arrangement between the landlord and the tenant which is not provided for in the headlease.
PW AND CO V MILTON GATE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
PENNELL V PAYNE
BARRETT V MORGAN
HEADLEASES
SUBLEASES
TERMINATION
The domino effect - 2004 - Estates Gazette (0444) 30 October 2004, 151(1) .
Considers "PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), Abs67644) which upheld the rule established in "Pennell v Payne" (CA, Abs52308) as upheld by "Barrett v Morgan" (HL, Abs61966) whereby the service of a notice to quit or a break notice will terminate not only the subject lease but also any sub-tenancies created out of that lease. A sublease will only survive if the termination of the sub-tenancy is by way of a consensual arrangement between the landlord and the tenant which is not provided for in the headlease.
PW AND CO V MILTON GATE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
PENNELL V PAYNE
BARRETT V MORGAN
HEADLEASES
SUBLEASES
TERMINATION