What are our chances of getting round this restriction by granting a sublease containing those terms while at the same time executing a separate deed that effectively indemnifies the sublessee from the consequences of biting off more than he wants to chew?
Related item:
See
Q We are anxious to sublet a warehouse building that we took a few years ago on a long lease. Unfortunately, the lease requires that any subletting should, so far as material, be on the same terms, these being quite unacceptable in today’s market.
What are our chances of getting round this restriction by granting a sublease containing those terms while at the same time executing a separate deed that effectively indemnifies the sublessee from the consequences of biting off more than he wants to chew?
A Very slim: see the Court of Appeal decision in Allied Dunbar Assurance plc v Homebase Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 666; [2002] 27 EG 144, as analysed by Sandi Murdoch in Nothing personal, Estates Gazette 6 July 2002, p139, and by Beverley Vara and Celyn Armstrong, of Allen & Overy, in Sideways look Estates Gazette 4 January 2003, p62. In that case, the deed and the proposed sublease were held to be interdependent, notwithstanding that the deed was expressed to be personal to the parties to the sublease.
Related item:
See PP 2002/154 and PP 2002/196
