PW & Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd

PW & Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd

It is not possible as a matter of law for a landlord and tenant to contract out of the general rule that a subtenancy is determined by determination of the head-tenancy in accordance with its terms. Clause 5(6) of the Headlease did not operate as a surrender, and neither estoppel by deed nor estoppel by convention...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: PW & Co; Respondent: Milton Gate Investments Ltd; Interested Party: BT plc group companies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Subtenancy Determination, Break Clauses, Estoppel by Deed, Estoppel by Convention, Contractual Interpretation, Human Rights Act Impact
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Subtenancy Determination Break Clauses Estoppel by Deed Estoppel by Convention Contractual Interpretation Human Rights Act Impact

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 45 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PW & Co

Applicant

Milton Gate Investments Ltd

Respondent

BT plc group companies

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a landlord and tenant can contract out of the general rule that a subtenancy is determined by determination of the head-tenancy
  2. 2 Whether clause 5(6) of the Headlease operated as a surrender or determination by notice
  3. 3 Whether estoppel by deed or convention applies to prevent the Underleases from determining

Ratio Decidendi

It is not possible as a matter of law for a landlord and tenant to contract out of the general rule that a subtenancy is determined by determination of the head-tenancy in accordance with its terms. Clause 5(6) of the Headlease did not operate as a surrender, and neither estoppel by deed nor estoppel by convention applied to prevent the Underleases from determining. The Underleases expired on 24th June 2002, and PW & Co became liable for the Penalty to Milton Gate Investments Ltd.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • PW & Co is liable to pay the Penalty to Milton Gate Investments Ltd as at 24th June 2002.
  • The Underleases expired on 24th June 2002.