Commercial Property Law II

09.02.2015
Covenants against alterations
This overlaps with user clauses. Normally only relates to leases that concern
property as a whole. There is an obvious distinction between structural and nonstructural alterations to the property.
An alteration may be an improvement where:
As with user clauses there are similar clauses affecting alterations. Such as
factors outside of the lease including planning permission or building regulations.
If the building were to be in a conservation area there would be restrictions on
the outside of the building. If the building is listed there will be likely restrictions
on work on both the outside and the inside of the work.
Heard v Sutton: A case where covenants imposed obligations such as: not to
make alterations to the outside of the premises, no alterations that may annoy
neighbours, no alteration to use of business (as a tailor) and an alienation clause
not to assign the lease. Sutton granted a lease to an advertising company to
promote an alcoholic beverage, the nearest neighbour was a church, who was
offended. The tenant was found to be in breach of all the clauses.
Bigmore and Dimmer: There was an assignment to Dimmer without the
landlords consent. This issue was eventually settled. Dimmer gave a covenant to
the landlord that he would abide by all the covenants in the lease. Dimmers
business was as a jeweller and watch-maker. To advertise his business he
decided to fix on the front wall of the business a large clock. He applied to the
landlord for consent to do this but it was refused. The landlord demanded that
Dimmer took the clock down that would cost 20. It was stated that: we have to
take into account the whole purpose of the lease and what it was granted for. He
ruled that it would be hard to hold that any alteration to the premises would
qualify as an alteration for the purpose of the covenant. Dimmer was allowed to
keep the clock outside the premises.
Joseph and London County Council: Covenant not to cut or maim walls. Ruled
alterations in this case must mean to the building. In this case temporary
alterations would not come under this.
London County Council v Hatter: Not to cut or maim any walls of the building
and not to make any alterations to the elevation of the building. An ad was
placed for Gordons gin. Nothing to do with Ts business so not In the course of
Ts business. Because ad was fixed to property there was a breach.
Woolworths: Woolworths wanted to take down a dividing wall between two
properties it leased.