000			02138cab a2200313 4500
001			ABS67644
008			040329n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125629
245			_aPW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants)
260			_c2004
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[2004] 2 WLR 2004, 443-508(60)
520			_a[2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), 8 August 2003. The claimant (PW) held the headlease of an office building owned by the defendant (MG). The two Part 20 defendants (BT) were subtenants holding underleases of parts of the building. When the headlease and underleases were granted, the parties were all under a misconception, based on the then accepted case law stated in "Brown v Wilson" (HC, [1950] 156 EG 45) that if the headtenant exercised its right to determine the headlease, the subtenants would be entitled to remain in possession. In 2000, PW exercised its right to determine the headlease. By then, "Brown" had been overruled by "Pennell v Payne" (CA, [1995] 06 EG 152) which stated that, in such circumstances, any subtenancy would also determine. PW claimed a declaration that it was not liable to pay the penalty upon determination of its headlease because the parties had contracted out of the usual rule under which subtenancies terminated with the headlease. The defendant argued that the underleases had determined at the same time, which meant 75% of the building was not sublet and the penalty payable. "Held": the claim was dismissed. As a general principle it was not possible to contract out of the general rule in "Pennell".
590			_aABS
650			_aPW AND CO V MILTON GATE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
650			_aESTOPPEL
650			_aEQUITY
650			_aHEADLEASES
650			_aUNDERLEASES
650			_aCONTRACTING OUT
650			_aBREAK NOTICES
650			_aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 S3
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S141
650			_aMISTAKE
650			_aBROWN V WILSON
650			_aPENNELL V PAYNE
650			_aBUSINESS PREMISES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c74316 _d74316