Hexstone Holdings Ltd v AHC Westlink Ltd

Hexstone Holdings Ltd v AHC Westlink Ltd

The break notice was invalid because it was not served by the tenant (AHC) or by a duly authorised agent. There was no evidence of express, implied, or general agency conferred by AHC on Mr Nixon or Eddie Stobart Limited. The notice was given by Eddie Stobart Limited as principal, not as agent for AHC. The Underlease therefore continues for the remainder of its term.

Parties
Claimant: Hexstone Holdings Limited; Defendant: AHC Westlink Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (landlord and Tenant) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Break Clause, Agency, Service of Notice, Construction of Lease, Authority to Act
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Break Clause Agency Service of Notice Construction of Lease Authority to Act

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hexstone Holdings Limited

Claimant

AHC Westlink Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (landlord and Tenant) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the break notice served under clause 7.1 of the Underlease was valid and effective to determine the lease on 31 October 2009
  2. 2 Whether the notice was given by the tenant or a duly authorised agent
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of agency law were satisfied for service of the notice

Ratio Decidendi

The break notice was invalid because it was not served by the tenant (AHC) or by a duly authorised agent. There was no evidence of express, implied, or general agency conferred by AHC on Mr Nixon or Eddie Stobart Limited. The notice was given by Eddie Stobart Limited as principal, not as agent for AHC. The Underlease therefore continues for the remainder of its term.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Underlease continues for the remainder of its term
  • Claimant entitled to payment of rent and other sums due under the Underlease after 31 October 2009 (quantum to be agreed or determined)