Roadside Group Limited v Zara Commercial Limited
Roadside Group Limited v Zara Commercial Limited
- 2010
[2010] EWHC 1950 (Ch), 30 July 2010. Appeal considers whether a tenant was liable under its lease for particular activities of its subtenant. Respondent landlord (Z) contended that tenant (R) was as a result of its subtenant (T) in breach of a covenant in its underlease not to use the demised premises "for the parking of motor vehicles for sale on any forecourt" and that Z was thereby entitled to forfeiture of the underlease and possession of the demised premises. Held: R was not in breach of the parking covenant because T was to blame. Found that the phrase in R's contract "not to use" referred to breaches by R not its subtenant T.
ROADSIDE GROUP LTD V ZARA COMMERCIAL LTD
MORRELLS OF OXFORD LTD V OXFORD UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB AND OTHERS
BERTON V ALLIANCE ECONOMIC INVESTMENT CO
EARL OF SEFTON V TOPHAMS LTD
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S79
England and Wales--1543-
[2010] EWHC 1950 (Ch), 30 July 2010. Appeal considers whether a tenant was liable under its lease for particular activities of its subtenant. Respondent landlord (Z) contended that tenant (R) was as a result of its subtenant (T) in breach of a covenant in its underlease not to use the demised premises "for the parking of motor vehicles for sale on any forecourt" and that Z was thereby entitled to forfeiture of the underlease and possession of the demised premises. Held: R was not in breach of the parking covenant because T was to blame. Found that the phrase in R's contract "not to use" referred to breaches by R not its subtenant T.
ROADSIDE GROUP LTD V ZARA COMMERCIAL LTD
MORRELLS OF OXFORD LTD V OXFORD UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB AND OTHERS
BERTON V ALLIANCE ECONOMIC INVESTMENT CO
EARL OF SEFTON V TOPHAMS LTD
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S79
England and Wales--1543-