A do-it-yourself solution
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0310) 8 March 2003, 159(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the case "Allied Dunbar Assurance plc v Homebase Ltd ([2002] EWCA Civ 666, Abs65740) in which the CA ruling has made it harder for tenants to sublet commercial premises below the full market rental value. Considers the implications of the decision, as some freeholders will ignore "Homebase" and permit a side agreement rather than have the risk of an empty property. To avoid the need for a side agreement, the solution is suggested that a subtenant returns the reverse premium to be held as a rent deposit. The tenant's cashflow would improve with each quarter as the subtenant paid rent at the full rate. At the end of the term, the reverse premium would be recouped by the tenant and the rent deposit would be returned. Concludes that the suggested solution will allow tenants to dispose of premises that could not otherwise be sublet.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66614 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 122136-1001 |
Discusses the case "Allied Dunbar Assurance plc v Homebase Ltd ([2002] EWCA Civ 666, Abs65740) in which the CA ruling has made it harder for tenants to sublet commercial premises below the full market rental value. Considers the implications of the decision, as some freeholders will ignore "Homebase" and permit a side agreement rather than have the risk of an empty property. To avoid the need for a side agreement, the solution is suggested that a subtenant returns the reverse premium to be held as a rent deposit. The tenant's cashflow would improve with each quarter as the subtenant paid rent at the full rate. At the end of the term, the reverse premium would be recouped by the tenant and the rent deposit would be returned. Concludes that the suggested solution will allow tenants to dispose of premises that could not otherwise be sublet.