Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Lease void against bank without written consent
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that a lease entered into without a bank's written consent was void against the bank, affirming the bank's right to possession of the premises. The appellant, who had a lease agreement with the bankrupt borrower, argued that the bank should comply with residential tenancies legislation regarding notice provisions for terminating her tenancy. However, the court found that the lease was void as against the bank due to the absence of consent, as required by the mortgage's negative pledge clause.
Court of Appeal - High Court - possession - mortgage - lease agreement - negative pledge clause - Residential Tenancies Act 2004 - bankruptcy - Official Assignee - tenant's rights - consent - written consent - estoppel - security of tenure - tenancy by estoppel - hybrid status - Kennedy v. O'Kelly - N17 Electrics Ltd - Conveyancing Act 1881 - Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 - European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 - Article 8 - Article 1 of the First Protocol - procedural fairness - appeal - costs.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
