000			01920cam a2200301 4500
001			ABS66910
008			030722n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u123086
100			_aSilman, G.
245		4	_aThe "Allied Dunbar v Homebase"case and its impact on flexible leases
260			_c2003
490			_aJournal of Retail and Leisure Property _v3(1) 2003, 9-20(12)
520			_aOne of the most contentious clauses in commercial leases has long been that relating to sublettings. Landlords in their negotiations could end up in a direct relationship with their subtenants, with a lease less favourable than the headlease that could be perpetuated on a renewal, and a lower rent which could also be used as a comparable on review under the headlease. Tenants could in a depressed market be unable to sublet at all. Tenants giving in to landlords' demands at times when rents were thought never to go down, dealt with the adverse situation by side deeds with the subtenant to reflect the true terms of the deal, whereas the underlease followed the specific requirements of the headlease. Following the decision in "Homebase Ltd and another v Allied Dunbar Assurance plc" ([2002] EWCA Civil 666, Abs65740), landlords will be alert to asking specifically whether there will be a side arrangement but all parties will be aware that this will not get round the terms of the headlease. References. [Taken from journal abstract].
590			_aABS
650			_aFLEXIBLE LEASES
650			_aHEADLEASES
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS) ACT 1995
650			_aSIDE DEEDS
650			_aUNDERLEASES
650			_aLANDLORDS
650			_aSUBTENANTS
650			_aHOMEBASE LTD AND ANOTHER V ALLIED DUNBAR ASSURANCE PLC
650			_aCOLLATERAL DEEDS
650			_aCOMMERCIAL LEASES
650			_aSUBLETTING
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c73090 _d73090