000			02153cab a2200229 4500
001			L129714
008			050516n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129714
041			_aeng
245			_aRepresentative Body of the Church in Wales v Newton and others
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 16 EG 145 (1) (CS)
520			_a[2005] EWHC 631 (QB), 14 April 2005. Discussed the issue of whether an agreement to assign was void because it was not in writing in an underlease between the second, third and fourth defendants, as required by the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s2. The claimant (R) held the reversion of an underlease of shop. The second (2) and third (3) defendant tenants sold their business to the first defendant (N) and assigned the the unexpired residue of the lease to him with R's consent. However N abandoned the shop and 2 and 3 began to negotiate the sale of the shop and reassignment of the lease to the fourth defendant (4). R then brought proceedings concerning the lease, in which the only surviving claim was under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 s17 for the fixed charges (rent and service charges) that fell due in 2003. 2 and 3 also made a Part 20 claim against 4 that he had entered into an agreement with them to take over the lease and its covenants. 4 also made a Part 20 claim on the grounds of misrepresentation and breach of conduct that 2 and 3 were unable to assign the lease lawfully. "Held": The claim was allowed and the Part 20 claims were dismissed. R's claim succeeded because N's return of the keys was not a surrender of the lease. The other claims failed because the promise to assign the lease was subject to R's consent.
590			_aIKA190505
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989 S2
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS) ACT 1995 S17
650			_aMATTEY SECURITIES LTD V ERVIN AND OTHERS
650			_aSINGH V BEGGS
650			_aYAXLEY V GOTTS
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
999			_c75226 _d75226