Leasehold covenants, indemnities and group reconstructions

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Leases are often assigned by one company to another within a group of companies. In this article the interaction of group structure and indemnities in leasehold covenants is explored. The analysis draws heavily on two recent cases: Stanhope Pension Trust v. Registrar of Companies (Stanhope) and RHP Ltd v. Mirror Group (Holdings) Ltd and Others (RPH). Covenants which include indemnities are implied under section 77 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (unregistered land) and section 24 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (registered land). In situations where there are several assignments of a lease, each with an implied indemnity, a default can begin a chain reaction. On the default of the leaseholder, the original tenant will become liable to the landlord but will be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee who will in turn be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee, and so on. Earlier assignees are termed “upstream” and later ones “downstream” so a better metaphor may be that of a “cascade”. The cascade can, however, be halted, shielding assignees downstream of the problem or blockage and leaving the assignee immediately upstream of the problem to bear the loss. This has particular relevance within groups of companies because, if the first assignee (or the original tenant) within a group of companies can provide such a shield, it may be possible to protect the assets of all downstream assignees including other members of the group.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)199-211
    Number of pages13
    JournalConveyancer and Property Lawyer
    Publication statusPublished - May 1995

    Fingerprint

    indemnity
    reconstruction
    Group
    registration act
    landlord
    pension
    metaphor
    assets
    act
    Law
    interaction

    Keywords

    • Company law
    • Assignment
    • Dissolution
    • Liquidation
    • Locus standi
    • Underleases

    Cite this

    @article{8de0460b4b7f45068aa1b1cb40b395f2,
    title = "Leasehold covenants, indemnities and group reconstructions",
    abstract = "Leases are often assigned by one company to another within a group of companies. In this article the interaction of group structure and indemnities in leasehold covenants is explored. The analysis draws heavily on two recent cases: Stanhope Pension Trust v. Registrar of Companies (Stanhope) and RHP Ltd v. Mirror Group (Holdings) Ltd and Others (RPH). Covenants which include indemnities are implied under section 77 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (unregistered land) and section 24 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (registered land). In situations where there are several assignments of a lease, each with an implied indemnity, a default can begin a chain reaction. On the default of the leaseholder, the original tenant will become liable to the landlord but will be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee who will in turn be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee, and so on. Earlier assignees are termed “upstream” and later ones “downstream” so a better metaphor may be that of a “cascade”. The cascade can, however, be halted, shielding assignees downstream of the problem or blockage and leaving the assignee immediately upstream of the problem to bear the loss. This has particular relevance within groups of companies because, if the first assignee (or the original tenant) within a group of companies can provide such a shield, it may be possible to protect the assets of all downstream assignees including other members of the group.",
    keywords = "Company law, Assignment, Dissolution, Liquidation, Locus standi, Underleases",
    author = "Alice Belcher",
    note = "dc.publisher: Sweet & Maxwell",
    year = "1995",
    month = "5",
    language = "English",
    pages = "199--211",
    journal = "Conveyancer and Property Lawyer",
    issn = "0010-8200",
    publisher = "Sweet & Maxwell",

    }

    Leasehold covenants, indemnities and group reconstructions. / Belcher, Alice.

    In: Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 05.1995, p. 199-211.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Leasehold covenants, indemnities and group reconstructions

    AU - Belcher, Alice

    N1 - dc.publisher: Sweet & Maxwell

    PY - 1995/5

    Y1 - 1995/5

    N2 - Leases are often assigned by one company to another within a group of companies. In this article the interaction of group structure and indemnities in leasehold covenants is explored. The analysis draws heavily on two recent cases: Stanhope Pension Trust v. Registrar of Companies (Stanhope) and RHP Ltd v. Mirror Group (Holdings) Ltd and Others (RPH). Covenants which include indemnities are implied under section 77 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (unregistered land) and section 24 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (registered land). In situations where there are several assignments of a lease, each with an implied indemnity, a default can begin a chain reaction. On the default of the leaseholder, the original tenant will become liable to the landlord but will be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee who will in turn be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee, and so on. Earlier assignees are termed “upstream” and later ones “downstream” so a better metaphor may be that of a “cascade”. The cascade can, however, be halted, shielding assignees downstream of the problem or blockage and leaving the assignee immediately upstream of the problem to bear the loss. This has particular relevance within groups of companies because, if the first assignee (or the original tenant) within a group of companies can provide such a shield, it may be possible to protect the assets of all downstream assignees including other members of the group.

    AB - Leases are often assigned by one company to another within a group of companies. In this article the interaction of group structure and indemnities in leasehold covenants is explored. The analysis draws heavily on two recent cases: Stanhope Pension Trust v. Registrar of Companies (Stanhope) and RHP Ltd v. Mirror Group (Holdings) Ltd and Others (RPH). Covenants which include indemnities are implied under section 77 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (unregistered land) and section 24 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (registered land). In situations where there are several assignments of a lease, each with an implied indemnity, a default can begin a chain reaction. On the default of the leaseholder, the original tenant will become liable to the landlord but will be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee who will in turn be impliedly indemnified by the next assignee, and so on. Earlier assignees are termed “upstream” and later ones “downstream” so a better metaphor may be that of a “cascade”. The cascade can, however, be halted, shielding assignees downstream of the problem or blockage and leaving the assignee immediately upstream of the problem to bear the loss. This has particular relevance within groups of companies because, if the first assignee (or the original tenant) within a group of companies can provide such a shield, it may be possible to protect the assets of all downstream assignees including other members of the group.

    KW - Company law

    KW - Assignment

    KW - Dissolution

    KW - Liquidation

    KW - Locus standi

    KW - Underleases

    M3 - Article

    SP - 199

    EP - 211

    JO - Conveyancer and Property Lawyer

    JF - Conveyancer and Property Lawyer

    SN - 0010-8200

    ER -