This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

LPC Law Notes Commercial Property Notes

Subletting Notes

Updated Subletting Notes

Commercial Property Notes

Commercial Property

Approximately 50 pages

A collection of the best LPC notes the Oxbridge Notes editorial team could find after having looked through dozens of applications. This single-author set of LPC notes is fully updated for recent exams.

The author of these notes earned a high 1.1/distinction at the OXILP....

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Property Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Commercial Property

Sub-lettings

What remedies do tenants / sub-tenants have if LL is breaching a covenant?

There is NO DIRECT CONTRACT between the LL and Sub-tenant. Therefore the LL cannot be directly forced to provide a remedy to the Sub-tenant. However, in the terms of the under-lease there should be a covenant that the head tenant will enforce the LL covenants [both express & implied] under the head-lease.

Key implied covenant: Landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment can be expressly in the lease or implied. The covenant will protect the tenant where there is a substantial interference with the tenant’s use & enjoyment of the premises. The implied covenant does not apply to superior title holder. Often a question of fact:

Owen v Gadd –[1956] Scaffolding on pavements in front of shop which blocked access [i.e. no need to prove physical intrusion. Physical interference with enjoyment is enough]
Booth v Thomas [1926] Flood caused by LL failure to repair
Mira v Aylmer LL repairing the premises but caused prolonged and substantial interference [noise, dust, dirt].

Key implied Covenant: LL should not derogate from grant!

  • Requires LL not to do anything which substantially interferes with the use of the premises for the purpose for which they were let.

Port v Griffith [1938] No derogation from grant where the LL use of the adjoining land merely makes the user of the premises more expensive
Chartered Trust plc v Davies [HOL]:

It is a derogation from grant to stand back while Tenant A, in breach of a covenant, commits acts of nuisance against Tenant B thus driving tenant B out of business.

Tenant / Sub tenant should not be expected to bring his own individual action for a nuisance. T was allowed to repudiate the lease.

Apply: if one tenant does something to adversely effect the common part and LL is in charge of maintaining the common parts – LL must take action or run the risk of derogating from his grant.

Key express Covenant: Express covenant that T will not be a nuisance

Key express Covenant: Express covenant that LL will use his best endeavors to provide the “Services” so long as T pays the service charge and observes obligations under the lease.

What control does LL have over the sub-tenant:

  • Main provisions to look for in the lease =

    • Tenant must get LL consent to sub-let

    • Clauses that grant LL control over the content of the sub-lease [e.g. Sub-least should be contracted out of the 1954 act – so T cannot hold over]

    • Direct covenants by sub-tenant to the LL – to observe the head-lease

What happens to sub-lease upon termination of head-lease:

Method of termination for head-lease Effect on Sub-lease
Break clause

  • Sub-lease is terminated – it falls away with the head-lease

  • If T2 is contracted out of the 1954 Act = he cannot hold over or ask for a new lease [by making a S.26 request]

  • If T2 is NOT contracted out of 1954 act = T2 can hold over and becomes the head tenant. LL would have to serve a S.25 notice on T2.

  • NB. You only get...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Property Notes.

More Commercial Property Samples