Having applied to the court under section 38(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, L and T have obtained approval of an agreement excluding the security of tenure provisions.
Can T subsequently claim that the purported contracting out was ineffective on the grounds that:
(a) The lease actually granted differed in certain respects from the draft lease annexed to the application?
(b) The application did not relate to a “term of years certain”, because the landlord was to be entitled to break in certain events?
The answer to (a) is: not necessarily. The answer to (b) is: no.
For the whys and wherefores, see
Having applied to the court under section 38(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, L and T have obtained approval of an agreement excluding the security of tenure provisions.
Can T subsequently claim that the purported contracting out was ineffective on the grounds that:
(a) The lease actually granted differed in certain respects from the draft lease annexed to the application?
(b) The application did not relate to a “term of years certain”, because the landlord was to be entitled to break in certain events?
The answer to (a) is: not necessarily. The answer to (b) is: no.
For the whys and wherefores, see Ironing out the wrinkles Estates Gazette 8 April 2000, p148, where Sandi Murdoch’s analyses Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District v Palacegate Properties Ltd [2000] 1 EGLR 63.
