Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 26.2 MB]
Categories:
Property Litigation
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

In this two part series, Camilla will set out the requirements on tenants when seeking to exercise a break. She will provide guidance for tenants to ensure that they avoid the severe consequences that can arise in this area of litigation.

In part one Camilla will look at the key concepts including when to serve notice and the question of who should give notice and on whom notice should be given in order to successfully exercise a break. In part two Camilla will discuss how notice is to be given and what constitutes proper service. Camilla will look at some points to be considered prior to serving notice and set out recent case law dealing with valid service of notice. She will consider breaks conditional upon compliance with covenants, and the concepts of material and reasonable compliance. Camilla will also advise on the significance of vacant possession conditions and look at how payment of rent interacts with the rules on breaking of a tenancy before setting out a checklist to protect tenants who seek to exercise a break clause.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Understand the impact of the recession on property litigation;
  • Know what a break option is and what form it will often take;
  • Be aware of some of the conditions break options are frequently the subject of;
  • Understand the consequences of failing to serve notice in time;
  • Understand the consequences of failing to exercise a break properly;
  • Be aware of the pertinent authorities in the area;
  • Know how to exercise a tenant’s right to notice properly;
  • Be able to identify the correct giver and recipient of a notice;
  • Understand the position regarding registered and unregistered title;
  • Understand the importance of serving notice at the right time.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Practical Guide
Sources and References:
  • Land Registration Act 1925;
  • Land Registration Act 2002;
  • Barnsley’s Land Options, Sweet & Maxwell; 4th Revised edition (21 Dec 2004);
  • The Code for Leasing Business Premises in England Wales 2007 (“the Business Lease Code”);
  • Estates Gazette (31.01.09), article by Tina Desai “Outstanding rent could turn into a game of Russian roulette, Estates Gazette (30 January 2010);
  • “Ensure you pay up before reaching breaking point” by Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC, Estates Gazette (26 April 2008);
  • Sandi Murdoch, “Commercial Leases: Future Directions” in Bright, Landlord and Tenant Law Past Present and Future” (Hart Publishing, 2006);
  • Aviva Life and Pensions UK Ltd v Linpac Mouldings Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 395, [2010] L & T R 10;
  • AWD Chase De Vere Wealth Management Ltd v Melville Street Properties Ltd [2009] CSOH;
  • Bairstow Eves (Securities) Ltd v Ripley [1992] 2 EGLR 47;
  • Baker Tilly Management Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd (11 December 2009, unreported);
  • Bass Holdings Ltd v Morton Music Ltd [1988] 1 Ch. 493;
  • Batt Cables Plc v Spencer Business Parks Ltd [2010] SLT 860;
  • Ben Cleuch Estates Ltd v Scottish Enterprise [2006] CSOH35; [2006] PLSCS 57;
  • Biondi v Kirklington and Piccadilly Estates Ltd [1947] 2 All ER 59;
  • Booth Investments Ltd v Reynolds (1974) New LJ 119;
  • Brown & Root Technology Ltd v Sun Alliance Assurance Co Ltd [2001] 1 Ch. 733;
  • Claire’s Accessories UK Ltd v Kensington High Street Associates LLC [2001] PLSCS 112;
  • Commercial Union Life Assurance Co. Ltd v Label Ink Ltd [2001] L & TR 29 (“Label Ink”) ;
  • Finch v Underwood [1876] 2 Ch 310;
  • Fitzroy House Epworth Street (No. 1) Ltd and another v The Financial Times Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ. 329; [2006] PLSCS 80;
  • Galinski v McHugh (1988) 57 P&CR 359, per Slade LJ at page 365 (in relation to section 23(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927);
  • Galinski v McHugh [1989] 1 EGLR 109;
  • Gardner v Blaxill [1960] 1 W.L.R. 752;
  • Bassett v Whitely (1982) P & CR 87;
  • Hexstone Holdings Ltd v AHC Westlink Ltd [2010] EWHC 1280 (Ch);
  • Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155;
  • Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Expeditors International (UK) Limited [2007] L & TR 21;
  • Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749, HL;
  • Marine Trade SA v Pioneer Freight Futures Co Ltd BVI [2009] EWHC 2656 (Comm);
  • Max Factor Ltd v Wesleyan Assurance Society (1997) 74 P & CR 8;
  • Mount Cook Land Ltd v The Media Centre (Properties) Ltd (No. 2) [2006] PLSCS 89;
  • Mourant Property Trust Ltd v Fusion Electric (UK) Limited [2009] EWHC 3659 (Ch);
  • Multon v Cordell [1986] 1 EGLR 44;
  • Orchard (Developments) Holdings Plc v Reuters Ltd [2009] 16 EG 140;
  • Pearson v Alyo [1990] 1 EGLR 114, CA;
  • Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Exel UK Ltd and another [2009] EWHC 1350 (Ch); [2009] PLSCS 200;
  • Re Munro [1981] WLR 1358;
  • Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt (No. 3) [2005] 1 WLR 1847;
  • Standard Life Investments Property Holdings Ltd v W&J Linney Ltd [2010] EWHC 480 (Ch);
  • The Hotgroup Plc v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (as Trustee of the Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust) [2010] EWHC 1241 (Ch);
  • Truegold International Ltd v Questrock Ltd [2010] EWHC 966 (Ch);
  • Trygort (Number 2) Ltd v UK Home Finance Ltd[2008] CSIH 56;
  • Warwick Ltd v GPS (Great Britain) Ltd [2006] PLSCS 210;
  • Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu [2003] L&TR 9.
Tags:

In this two part series Camilla Lamont, a barrister from Landmark Chambers considers the effect of the recession on property litigation for tenants seeking to break leases and offers practical guidance for tenants and gives an overview of the pertinent authorities on the topic.

Podcast added: 18/01/11

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-07-18

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com