Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The third case this year where a tenant’s defence to a landlord’s summary judgement claim for pandemic rent arrears failed.
The tenant (P) held two leases of a cinema premises in the Trocadero Centre in London. One lease was granted in 1994 and the other in 2014. The leases provided that the property could only be used as a cinema and that the landlord did not warrant that the property could be lawfully used as such.
During the pandemic, regulations required the cinema to close for certain periods. During those times, P could not trade at all. In the gaps between those restrictions, the trading conditions were so poor in Central London that the cinema largely remained closed. When it did open, its takings were a fraction of what they would have been in normal circumstances.
P had not paid any rent since June 2020. The landlord (LT) sought summary judgment for arrears of rent and service charge of £2.9 million.
The new regime introduced by the Act will take shape over the next 18 months, but those who design, build or manage high rise buildings are being urged to get ready for the changes to be introduced through the act.
View
On 14 February 2022, Secretary of State of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove, announced proposals designed to pressure building developers and materials manufacturers to fund the remediation of unsafe properties.
A tenant in Scotland had validly exercised a break option even though it failed to pay VAT on the break premium.
The court provides some useful guidance on the different types of endeavours obligations and good faith clauses.
The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.
Professional Development Lawyer
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up