Civil Law Act 2008 changes to law governing business equity

M

murphaph

Registered User
Messages
1,135
Dear all,
Currently negotiating a sticky situation with an in situ commercial tenant. Solicitor seems to think we cannot grant a new lease to a commercial tenant without him giving us vacant possession for a couple of weeks to establish a new lease.

He has reverted to the barrister for further clarification. It is imperative that we don't allow a business equity to be established (tenant has been in situ for almost the 5 years and his lease is up). We will have to seek possession if we can't agree a legally enforceable contracting out of the business equity by the tenant.

I was under the impression the civil law act 2008 allowed tenants to contract out of their business equity at the start of a tenancy. Is this not the case? Can anyone point to the exact legislation if they reckon it is?

Thanks for any help here. It's very important.
 
I found it. Section 47 of the new 2008 act amends section 4 of the 1994 amendment to the original 1980 Landlord & Tenant Act. Our solicitor apologised for not being up to date on his info. Just goes to show even a pro can get it wrong sometimes. He said that the new section does indeed allow anyone to contract out of business equity, regardless of the use of the property.
 
murphaph said:
I found it. Section 47 of the new 2008 act amends section 4 of the 1994 amendment to the original 1980 Landlord & Tenant Act. Our solicitor apologised for not being up to date on his info. Just goes to show even a pro can get it wrong sometimes. He said that the new section does indeed allow anyone to contract out of business equity, regardless of the use of the property.
Click to expand...

This is amazing that the solicitor didn't know this point. One of the benefits of AAM is that questions can be answered and points identified for others to make and take note, even though in your case murphaph you did the searching yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mercman said:
This is amazing that the solicitor didn't know this point. One of the benefits of AAM is that questions can be answered and points identified for others to make and take note, even though in your case murphaph you did the searching yourself.
Click to expand...
Too true mercman. I suspect because the Act wasn't specifically named for the thing it amended (miscellaneous provisions) it slipped under the radar. I'm sure our solicitor wouldn't have been alone and he's a good guy who we really trust. I think the whole system is archaic and English common law should be scrapped some day, to be replaced by a codified system like most of Europe.

Anyway, it was indeed on AAM that I initially read of the provisions of that act so it just goes to show you what a useful resource it is.
 
But in these cases you should hire a professional and reliable attorney
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top