Waiving and drowning handling break notices with care
Language: English Series: Hogan Lovells Real Estate Quarterly ; Summer 2011, 7-9(3)Publication details: 2011Subject(s):- MANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK
- LEMMERBELL LTD AND ANOTHER V BRITANNIA LAS DIRECT LTD
- PRUDENTIAL V EXEL UK
- ORCHARD (DEVELOPMENTS) HOLDINGS PLC V REUTERS LTD
- HOTGROUP V ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
- MW TRUSTEES LTD AND ORS V TELULAR CORPORATION
- LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L153779 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 153779-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Examines recent case law highlighting the difficulties encountered by tenants in serving valid break notices, specifically "MW Trustees Limited, Robert Posel and Pamela Posel v Telular Corporation"[2011] EWHC104 (see L152967). Sets out the legal framework, both statute and case law , relating to the service tenants' contractual break notice. Provides an analysis of the facts of 'Telular' and the judgment which may have turned the tables in favour of tenants. Tenants should take legal advice to ensure the valid operation of a break clause because the consequences of getting it wrong can be disastrous. Landlords also when receiving potentially defective should get legal help.