header-logo header-logo

18 June 2020 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7891 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Compare & contrast: three lessons from the courts on covenants

22939
Why is the ability of a tenant to modify certain restrictive covenants in leases under s 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 not better known, asks Andrew Francis
  • The decision in Edgware Road.
  • Comparisons withShaviram and Berkeley Square.
  • Practical suggestions.

At first sight there is not much in common between a vacant 1980s office building near Basingstoke Railway Station, a mid-eighteenth century Grade I townhouse and a Grade II mews house of the same period, on the west side of Berkeley Square in Mayfair and finally, part of a 1960s development (formerly used as offices) on the west side of the Edgware Road, less than half a mile north of Marble Arch. The tenant of each property wanted to modify the user covenant in its lease. While the locations and properties were different, the commercial and economic interests of the applicant tenants were aligned, as were the interests of the respondent landlords. In each application

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll