Dyment v Boyden and others
Dyment v Boyden and others
- 2005
- Estates Gazette [2005] 06 EG 142-147(6) .
[2004] EWCA Civ 1586, 26 November 2004. Considers if a tenant under a lease delivered in escrow should be treated as being bound to that lease. D appealed against an earlier judgment ([2004] EWHC 350, [2004] 2 BCLC 423) dismissing her application for relief under the Companies Act 1985. The second and third respondents (B) had granted D's company a lease a at rent reflecting their loss of earnings after D had exchanged her interest in the property for their interest in the company. D refused pay this rent on the grounds of an alleged agreement that she would not have to until her own property had been released from a charge and placed the company into voluntary liquidation. "Held": it was wrong in principle for an intended party to treat itself as bound to a lease before actually committing to the lease merely because the other party had delivered the lease in escrow; the escrow conditions were therefore not satisfied and the Companies Act 1985 s151(1) did not apply. Appeal dismissed.
DYMENT V BOYDEN AND OTHERS
COMPANIES ACT 1985
[2004] EWCA Civ 1586, 26 November 2004. Considers if a tenant under a lease delivered in escrow should be treated as being bound to that lease. D appealed against an earlier judgment ([2004] EWHC 350, [2004] 2 BCLC 423) dismissing her application for relief under the Companies Act 1985. The second and third respondents (B) had granted D's company a lease a at rent reflecting their loss of earnings after D had exchanged her interest in the property for their interest in the company. D refused pay this rent on the grounds of an alleged agreement that she would not have to until her own property had been released from a charge and placed the company into voluntary liquidation. "Held": it was wrong in principle for an intended party to treat itself as bound to a lease before actually committing to the lease merely because the other party had delivered the lease in escrow; the escrow conditions were therefore not satisfied and the Companies Act 1985 s151(1) did not apply. Appeal dismissed.
DYMENT V BOYDEN AND OTHERS
COMPANIES ACT 1985