Tenants failure to pay full rent when exercising a break clause was fatal
In a previous article the potential dangers of exercising break clauses in leases were highlighted. The court has looked at this area again in PCE Investors Limited v Cancer Research UK , a case which highlights another trap for the unwary.
In the current economic climate break clauses are proving fertile territory for disputes, tenants are relying on them to escape leases entered into when times were better and landlords are challenging their exercise to try and keep tenants locked into leases.
Head tenant unable to refuse its sub-tenant’s right to a new lease
Landlords acquiring interests in commercial property with mid to long term plans to occupy the premises for their own use need to be aware of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“the Act”) when there is a tenant protected under the Act in occupation. This is still the case when the landlord is itself a tenant, and not the freeholder.
In a recent article we commented on the Court’s decision in the case of Westbrook Dolphin Square Limited and Friends Life Limited . Westbrook appealed the judge’s decision which struck out proceedings it had brought against Friends Life.
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Swain Mason & Others v Mills & Reeve shows that, in professional negligence claims, it is important to be clear on what your case against the solicitor is, particularly in relation to whether in all the circumstances the solicitor’s retainer or duty covers the alleged negligence complained of.
We have previously commented on important decisions in relation to the interpretation of Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seems that the court continues to grapple with question of interpretation of offers to settle made pursuant to Part 36.
The recent case of PGF II SA v (1) OMFS Company (2) Bank of Scotland plc  serves as a timely reminder of the court’s discretion regarding costs following acceptance of a Part 36 offer and the implications of refusing to mediate.