The domino effect
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0444) 30 October 2004, 151(1)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Summary: Considers "PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), Abs67644) which upheld the rule established in "Pennell v Payne" (CA, Abs52308) as upheld by "Barrett v Morgan" (HL, Abs61966) whereby the service of a notice to quit or a break notice will terminate not only the subject lease but also any sub-tenancies created out of that lease. A sublease will only survive if the termination of the sub-tenancy is by way of a consensual arrangement between the landlord and the tenant which is not provided for in the headlease.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS68448 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 128050-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Considers "PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), Abs67644) which upheld the rule established in "Pennell v Payne" (CA, Abs52308) as upheld by "Barrett v Morgan" (HL, Abs61966) whereby the service of a notice to quit or a break notice will terminate not only the subject lease but also any sub-tenancies created out of that lease. A sublease will only survive if the termination of the sub-tenancy is by way of a consensual arrangement between the landlord and the tenant which is not provided for in the headlease.