Homebase Ltd. & Anor v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 666 (17th May, 2002)

Homebase Ltd. & Anor v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 666 (17th May, 2002)

The requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proviso to clause 3(32)(C) of the headlease are not satisfied where the underlease and collateral deed, read together, create obligations regarding rent and repairs that are inconsistent with those requirements, even if such obligations are expressed to be personal between the original parties. The landlord was therefore entitled to refuse consent, and no duty arose under section 1(3)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 666
Parties
Defendant/appellants: Homebase Limited & anr; Claimant/respondents: Allied Dunbar Assurance PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (high Court) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Underletting, Landlord's Consent, Lease Covenants, Collateral Agreements, Rent Review, Repairing Obligations
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Commercial Leases Underletting Landlord's Consent Lease Covenants Collateral Agreements Rent Review +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Homebase Limited & anr

Defendant/appellants

Allied Dunbar Assurance PLC

Claimant/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (high Court) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed underlease and collateral deed satisfied the requirements of the headlease's proviso regarding underletting, specifically paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of clause 3(32)(C)
  2. 2 Whether the landlord's refusal of consent to underlet was unreasonable under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proviso to clause 3(32)(C) of the headlease are not satisfied where the underlease and collateral deed, read together, create obligations regarding rent and repairs that are inconsistent with those requirements, even if such obligations are expressed to be personal between the original parties. The landlord was therefore entitled to refuse consent, and no duty arose under section 1(3)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused