A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 24 febrero 2014
In June last year, we advised that the High Court found that a guarantor of a lease was discharged in full after the landlord and the tenant, but not the guarantor, entered into a licence for alterations. To view the tip click here.
The Court of Appeal has now upheld last year's Topland v Smiths decision, holding that the licence amounted to a variation of the lease as it had the potential to increase the tenant's obligations and, applying the Holme v Brunskill rule, the guarantor was released from its surety obligations.
What was interesting about the Court of Appeal decision was the comment by Mr Justice Arnold that "if it had been the draftsman's intention to stipulate that the rule in Holme v Brunskill did not apply at all, it would have been perfectly easy for him to do so in a variety of ways". Whilst this may offer some comfort to landlords and others that incorporate such protective drafting, the best course of action is to ensure that any guarantor is a party to licences for alterations, deeds of variation or other supplemental lease documents.
Robert Lee, Gemma Leonard, Ben Pariser
Christopher Stanwell, Ben Sasson
Robert Lee, James Harrison, Ben Pariser, Gemma Leonard
Andrew Morgan, Christopher Stanwell