000			01963cab a22002295a 4500
001			L147249
008			090420e20090401xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u147249
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aShaw v Doleman _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2009
520			_a[2009] EWCA Civ 279, 1 April 2009. Case highlights that the wording common in Authorised Guarantee Agreements (AGAs) may not mean what the tenant thinks it means. An appellant tenant of a retail unit (S) appealed against a decision that she was liable to pay arrears of rent and of insurance rent to the respondent landlord (D). S had assigned the tenancy to a third party (C) and at the same time executed an AGA. The AGA required S to guarantee the assignee C 's liability under the lease 'throughout the period during which the Assignee is bound by the tenant covenants of the lease'. C went into liquidation. The liquidator disclaimed the lease. A dispute arose over where the loss lies on the insolvency of the corporate assignee - on the landlord or on the guarantor? Held: appeal dismissed. The disclaimer terminated the lease and the liability of the assignee company, but that did not affect the liabilities of any other person. Although the lease was terminated, S was still bound by the tenant covenants as though it had not been. Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd applied. Those who draft or check the wording of AGAs would be wise to consider their wording carefully.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aSHAW V DOLEMAN
650	2	4	_aHINDCASTLE LTD V BARBARA ATTENBOROUGH ASSOCIATES LTD
650	2	4	_aINSOLVENCY ACT 1986 S178(4)(B)
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-COMMERCIAL LEASES
690			_aMANAGEMENT-CORPORATE RECOVERY
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/279.html/ _zView the case free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c81450 _d81450