| 000 | 01160cab a2200241 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS68448 | ||
| 008 | 041118n2004 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u128050 | ||
| 100 | _aMurdoch, S. | ||
| 245 | 4 | _aThe domino effect | |
| 260 | _c2004 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(0444) 30 October 2004, 151(1) |
||
| 520 | _aConsiders "PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd" ([2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), Abs67644) which upheld the rule established in "Pennell v Payne" (CA, Abs52308) as upheld by "Barrett v Morgan" (HL, Abs61966) whereby the service of a notice to quit or a break notice will terminate not only the subject lease but also any sub-tenancies created out of that lease. A sublease will only survive if the termination of the sub-tenancy is by way of a consensual arrangement between the landlord and the tenant which is not provided for in the headlease. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aPW AND CO V MILTON GATE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS | ||
| 650 | _aPENNELL V PAYNE | ||
| 650 | _aBARRETT V MORGAN | ||
| 650 | _aHEADLEASES | ||
| 650 | _aSUBLEASES | ||
| 650 | _aTERMINATION | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c74611 _d74611 |
||