Image from Google Jackets

Phillips v Mobil Oil Co Ltd

Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1989) 3 All ER 97-102(6)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 May 1989. By a lease dated 12 August 1961 a company R, the original lessor, granted to the defendant (M) a lease of a petrol filling station for 25 years to expire in May 1986. The lease contained a covenant to grant the lessee a further 25 years. In 1971 R sold the property to V who in 1976 sold it to B. In 1981 M granted a three year underlease to the plaintiff`s (P) company. In 1983 B as mortgagees sold the freehold to P personally hence P owned the freehold subject to the 1961 lease and his company occupied the property as undertenant to M. In 1985 M exercised their option to renew the lease but P declined on the grounds that the covenant had never been registered with the lands charges register and he issued a writ claiming that the renewal option was void. This was backed by HC and M appealed. CA dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the lease renewal covenant came under Land Charges Act 1925 s10 and was not valid if not registered. However it was to be noted that the
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS41623 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 31230-1001

CA 19 May 1989. By a lease dated 12 August 1961 a company R, the original lessor, granted to the defendant (M) a lease of a petrol filling station for 25 years to expire in May 1986. The lease contained a covenant to grant the lessee a further 25 years. In 1971 R sold the property to V who in 1976 sold it to B. In 1981 M granted a three year underlease to the plaintiff`s (P) company. In 1983 B as mortgagees sold the freehold to P personally hence P owned the freehold subject to the 1961 lease and his company occupied the property as undertenant to M. In 1985 M exercised their option to renew the lease but P declined on the grounds that the covenant had never been registered with the lands charges register and he issued a writ claiming that the renewal option was void. This was backed by HC and M appealed. CA dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the lease renewal covenant came under Land Charges Act 1925 s10 and was not valid if not registered. However it was to be noted that the