[2005] EWHC 805 (Ch), 25 May 2005. Considers whether the absence of a repairing covenant in an underlease, mirroring the repair rights and protection in the superior commercial lease, meant that the condition precedent to any obligation on the landlord to consider the tenant's application for a underlease were never satisfied. Claimant landlord (L) sought an injunction to get the second defendant underlessee (M) to surrender an underlease to commercial premises to the first defendant lessee (T) and damages from both. T counterclaimed that L had unreasonably withheld consent to the underlease. L submitted that T had granted an underlease to M in breach of its covenant restricting the grant of underleases. That the underlease was on different terms to the lease and that M by accepting the underlease had unlawfully interfered with the contractual relationship between L and T. "Held": judgment for the claimants. The absence of a repairing covenant, which ensured like rights and protection between tenant and underlessee, as existed between landlord and tenant, meant that the condition precedent obliging L to consider T's application for the grant of an underlease to M was never satisfied. M wrongly interfered with L's contractual relationship with T and was liable for compensatory damage.