Image from Google Jackets

Dyment v Boyden and others

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 06 EG 142-147(6)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2004] EWCA Civ 1586, 26 November 2004. Considers if a tenant under a lease delivered in escrow should be treated as being bound to that lease. D appealed against an earlier judgment ([2004] EWHC 350, [2004] 2 BCLC 423) dismissing her application for relief under the Companies Act 1985. The second and third respondents (B) had granted D's company a lease a at rent reflecting their loss of earnings after D had exchanged her interest in the property for their interest in the company. D refused pay this rent on the grounds of an alleged agreement that she would not have to until her own property had been released from a charge and placed the company into voluntary liquidation. "Held": it was wrong in principle for an intended party to treat itself as bound to a lease before actually committing to the lease merely because the other party had delivered the lease in escrow; the escrow conditions were therefore not satisfied and the Companies Act 1985 s151(1) did not apply. Appeal dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS68747 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 128918-1001

[2004] EWCA Civ 1586, 26 November 2004. Considers if a tenant under a lease delivered in escrow should be treated as being bound to that lease. D appealed against an earlier judgment ([2004] EWHC 350, [2004] 2 BCLC 423) dismissing her application for relief under the Companies Act 1985. The second and third respondents (B) had granted D's company a lease a at rent reflecting their loss of earnings after D had exchanged her interest in the property for their interest in the company. D refused pay this rent on the grounds of an alleged agreement that she would not have to until her own property had been released from a charge and placed the company into voluntary liquidation. "Held": it was wrong in principle for an intended party to treat itself as bound to a lease before actually committing to the lease merely because the other party had delivered the lease in escrow; the escrow conditions were therefore not satisfied and the Companies Act 1985 s151(1) did not apply. Appeal dismissed.