| 000 | 01220cab a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS68360 | ||
| 008 | 041028n2004 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u127845 | ||
| 100 | _aMurdoch, S. | ||
| 245 | _aReversing the trend | ||
| 260 | _c2004 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(0439) 25 September 2004, 133(1) |
||
| 520 | _aThe right to sublet is often restricted or even prohibited by a covenant in a tenant's lease. Compares two different approaches taken by the courts with regards to consideration of subletting by tenants. In "Homebase Ltd and another v Allied Dunbar Assurance plc" ([2002] EWCA Civ 666, Abs65740), the CA agreed with the landlord's contention that the proposed sublease did not comply with the required preconditions. However in "NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No 1 Ltd ([2004] EWHC 921, [2004] 16 EG 110(CS)) the payment of a reverse premium was accepted as a way of satisfying headlease conditions. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aREVERSE PREMIUM | ||
| 650 | _aSUBLETTING | ||
| 650 | _aHEADLEASES | ||
| 650 | _aHOMEBASE LTD AND ANOTHER V ALLIED DUNBAR ASSURANCE PLC | ||
| 650 | _aNCR LTD V RIVERLAND PORTFOLIO NO 1 LTD | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c74585 _d74585 |
||