Brown & Root Technology and another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co Ltd
Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1995) 3 WLR 558-572(15)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: ChD 16 June 1995. The first plaintiff (A) was a partly-owned subsidiary of the second plaintiff (B) when a 25-year lease was granted for premises by the defendant (S). The lease was registered at the Land Registry. Four years later A became a wholly-owned subsidiary of B, and upon request S granted a licence to assign the lease to A. This assignment was not registered with the Land Registry - thus, under the Land Registry Act 1925 the leasehold interest remained with B. When A served notice to terminate the lease S refused its acceptance. Held, refusing that notice was valid under, the 1925 Act provisions.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS53801 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 6666-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
ChD 16 June 1995. The first plaintiff (A) was a partly-owned subsidiary of the second plaintiff (B) when a 25-year lease was granted for premises by the defendant (S). The lease was registered at the Land Registry. Four years later A became a wholly-owned subsidiary of B, and upon request S granted a licence to assign the lease to A. This assignment was not registered with the Land Registry - thus, under the Land Registry Act 1925 the leasehold interest remained with B. When A served notice to terminate the lease S refused its acceptance. Held, refusing that notice was valid under, the 1925 Act provisions.