17 May 2012
TINLINE PROPERTIES (CANTERBURY) LIMITED V WESTFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-2726
- Citation
- openlaw-30e131de_e9c1_4c74_a4ea_3431650d6c8c.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The head tenant (Westfield) did not hold over because it did not remain in factual physical occupation; the landlord (Tinline) accepted the undertenant (Barrington Trading) as its tenant by permitting continued occupation and accepting payments through its agent such that clause 2.2 did not impose rent liability on Westfield, so defendants succeed.