Hexstone Holdings v AHC Westlink
Language: English Publication details: 2011Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2010] EWHC 1280 (Ch) 11 June 2010. Concerns the problem of how to exercise break rights in leases effectively. Defendant tenant (A) tried to exercise a break clause in a lease granted by claimant landlord (H) after A had merged with Eddie Stobart Ltd (E). E, a separate company, served the break notice rather than A. H contended that the break notice was invalid because it did not bear A's name. "Held": HC found for H because the notice was misleading. No evidence proved that A had authorised E to serve the break notice. A should have signed the break notice.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 152855-2001 |
[2010] EWHC 1280 (Ch) 11 June 2010. Concerns the problem of how to exercise break rights in leases effectively. Defendant tenant (A) tried to exercise a break clause in a lease granted by claimant landlord (H) after A had merged with Eddie Stobart Ltd (E). E, a separate company, served the break notice rather than A. H contended that the break notice was invalid because it did not bear A's name. "Held": HC found for H because the notice was misleading. No evidence proved that A had authorised E to serve the break notice. A should have signed the break notice.