Leasehold covenants

Lucinda Pattison, Property law

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Okay. Welcome to the final session. We're going to be looking at leasehold covenants in this
session. We will be first of all looking at what leasehold covenants are, the position of the original
parties to the lease, so the original landlord and tenant. Then, we're going to be looking at
whether the covenant will pass to successes of the landlord and tenant. If the landlord sells their
title to somebody else, the reversionary type, we look at whether the covenants pass, and likewise,
if the tenant sells the lease to somebody else, whether the covenant is passed to that new tenant.
In that respect, we have got two sets of rules to look at. We will look at leases that were granted
before the 1st of January 1996 and leases that were granted after that date because we have two
sets of rules. Before we get onto that, if we just first off think generally about leasehold covenants.
First of all, what is a covenant? Well, a covenant is simply a promise to do something or not to do
something in relation to land.
Now, leases have many covenants in them between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord will
enter into a number of covenants relating to things like repair of the property, perhaps structural
insurance of the property, even a covenant to the tenant so the tenant has quiet enjoyment of that
property. In terms of the tenant, they will enter also into lots and lots of covenants to do with the
property, anything from paying their rent to how the property can or can't be used, their
responsibility for repair, various different things.
Now, in terms of the original parties to the lease, so I'm talking about the original landlord and the
original tenant that sign up, you may also see a landlord, by the way, referred to as a lessor, and a
tenant as a lessee. Landlord and tenant or lessor or lessee, I’ll refer to them as landlord and tenant.
In terms of the covenants that the original landlord and tenant enter into, they will be binding
between them.

Because they're the original parties to the lease, and they signed up to it if you like, and so they can
be enforced against each other as the original parties. That's fairly straightforward, but what we
need to think about is what happens if the landlord sells that reversionary title or the tenant sells
the lease. In that situation, to the new landlord or the new tenant coming in, did they have to
abide by the covenants? Can they be enforced against them? Also, can they enforce covenants
against the other party as well?
Before we get into the rules, it's important just to appreciate this idea of the benefits of a covenant
and also the burden of a covenant because we do treat them separately. The benefit of a covenant
is the right to sue on that covenant to enforce the promise against somebody else. That is the
benefit. I want to enforce a covenant against a landlord. Me enforcing that, I have to have the
benefit of that covenant. The burden of a covenant is actually the obligation being on you to
perform that covenant or observe it.
If I have the burden, it means I must abide by that covenant, so the promise to do something or
not to do something. Now, when the reversionary title, so the land was reversionary title and/or
the lease have been sold or passed on to a successor, what you've got to do is look and see if the
successor has gotten the benefit of the covenants in that lease or reversionary title, and whether
they have the burden of those covenants within the reversionary title or the lease.

Page 1 of 9
It is possible that you may end up with a mixture. For example, the benefit of some covenants may
have passed to them but not others. The burden of some covenants may have passed to them and
not others. You have to look at the rules and decide which covenants have passed in that sense.
Now, we have two sets of rules. Since this has come in since the 1st of January 1996, we have one
set of rules that deals with leases pre the 1st of January 1996, and we have another set of rules that
deals with leases on or after the 1st of January 1996.
Leases before the 1st of January 1996 are governed by common law and statute. We use rules
there to see whether covenants pass or not to successors. Leases on or after the 1st of January
1996 are governed by the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. We look at the rules under
that act to see whether covenants pass to successors or not. I'll come on to this in a bit, but one
thing just to mention here is that sections 17 to 20 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act
1995 also apply to leases pre the 1st of January 1996.
Only sections 17 to 20 are retrospective in that way and will apply to leases before that date. The
rest of the Act is purely for leases after the Act came in. We're going to look at both sets of rules.
We will look at covenants and leases granted before the 1st of January 1996, to begin with. Now,
leases granted before that date are commonly known as old leases. Personally, anything that was
around in 1996, I wouldn’t class it as old, but we refer to them as old leases. That makes it a lot
easier.
From here on in for the rest of this session, I'll refer to any lease before the 1st of January '96 as an
old lease. It makes it easier than keep having to say lease before the 1st of January '96. Now, the
position between the original parties to the lease, the original landlord and tenant, is that all
covenants are enforceable between themselves. That's because they are the original parties to the
lease and it's based on privity of contract, they signed up to it.
In terms of what then happens to those original parties, if they pass their interest on to a successor,
we have to look and see whether they remain liable even if they're no longer the landlord or the
tenant that are actually in occupation of the property and have that lease. Now, under old leases,
the original tenant remains liable for the covenants throughout the whole term of the lease even if
they have assigned that lease to someone else.
Even if they have sold it or transferred it, the original tenant will remain liable for the whole
contractual term of that lease. There is a case that backs up this idea called Allied London
Investments Ltd v. Hambro Life Assurance Ltd. What that means, practically speaking, is whoever
has the benefit of the covenant, so the landlord, if you like, whichever landlord, original or
successor, if they have the benefit of the covenants, they can enforce them against the original
tenant even if they're not the person who committed the breach because they haven't owned that
lease or been in occupation for like 5 years or 10 years, or even 30 because the original tenant
remains liable for the whole term.
Now, there are some limited exceptions to this when the original tenant will not be liable for the
whole term after an assignment. One of them is where there's been an assignment of what we call
a perpetually renewable lease. Perpetually renewable, meaning it can keep being renewed. The
reason they don't remain liable is because they would, in theory, be liable forever, indefinitely.
Another time an original tenant will not remain liable after an assignment is if the lease specifically
says their liability is to come to an end on an assignment. You actually put a clause in there saying
once they sign the lease, that's it. Another time they will not be liable is if the original term of the
lease, the contractual term, has come to an end, but it has been extended under statute, so a
statutory extension.

Page 2 of 9
The original tenant will not be liable for breaches in the statutory extension. If you think about it,
they didn't sign up for that. They only signed up for the original term, so that's quite a logical one.
They will also not be liable-- and this will make sense to you from the last session. They will also not
be liable if the original lease was surrendered and a new lease was granted. The original lease they
had was surrendered and given back and a new lease was granted.
The other thing they will not be liable for is any increase in rent where the terms of the lease have
been varied. After they've assigned it, an actual term of the lease has been changed, and as a
result, the rent is higher. They won't be responsible for the increase in that rent. That latter point is
covered under section 18 actually of the Act and applies retrospectively. That's one of them.

In terms of procedure then, if the landlord is going to go after the original tenant but they are not
the ones that has actually committed the breach, what do they do? Well, this is where section 17 of
the 1995 Act comes in because that's another one I said that applies to old leases as well, so
section 17 to 20. Section 17 applies where the landlord wants to recover rent service charge or,
effectively, damages from the original tenant, so money, if you want to think of it that way.

If they want to recover any of those things, then they have to serve a notice on the original tenant
within six months of the amount becoming due. If a rental payment has been missed by the
current tenant, in order to enforce this against the original one, the landlord must serve this
statutory notice within six months of that rent re-occurring. This is commonly called a problem
notice. No great surprise. Why? Because there is a problem going on.
The reason you have that six-month time limit is to stop great big arrays of rent service charge and
things accruing. Then, a landlord turning up to an original tenant a year later and saying, "Oh, I'm
going to enforce a year's worth of rent against you." The maximum obviously they can get to
without serving notice is within six months. In terms of the fairness of this, I can see by everybody's
faces, everybody is looking going, "Hang on a minute, this doesn't seem very fair." Quite right.
That's one of the reasons why the act came in and changed things.
If the original tenant is liable for an assignee's breach of covenant, so a successor's breach of
covenant, then, of course, they may be able to recover that money that they’ve paid out on that
person's behalf themselves. This can be done under an indemnity covenant, and that can be an
express indemnity covenant. When they assigned the lease and the new tenant came in, that
tenant gave an express indemnity covenant that basically said, "I'll abide by the covenants, and if I
don't and you get sued because of my breach, I’ll indemnify you."
That's an express one. There's also an implied indemnity covenant under section 77 of the Law of
Property Act 1925. That's another way of recovering. Also, you can recover under what's called
restitution under the case of Moule v. Garrett. We also have case law that backs up this idea. That's
the way of the original tenant recovering the money they’ve paid out. Now, understandably, the
original tenant is not going to want this to keep happening. What they can do is under section 19
of the '95 Act.
They can ask for what's called an overriding lease from the landlord. They can ask for this if they've
paid the amount of money that was asked for under the section 17 notice, the problem notice.
They have 12 months within making the payment to actually request this overriding lease. What is
an overriding lease then? How does it work? Well, basically, the overriding lease, so you have got
currently at the moment a lease between the landlord and the current tenant, which the original
tenant was a party to that lease, but they sold the lease to the current tenant.
If they request an overriding lease, the overriding lease comes in between the landlord and tenant.
What it does, it makes the original tenant the tenant of the current landlord, and that original

Page 3 of 9
tenant becomes the landlord of the current tenant that is there. Their lease slips in between, if you
like, the parties. The result of this is the original tenant is now the landlord of the current tenant
who is causing problems and not paying their rent and doing things.

What that means is because now, they're their landlord, they can enforce the covenants in the
lease against them and take control. In other words, if they are becoming a problem, they are now
in control rather than keep getting notices trying to enforce it. They can obviously recover directly
from the current tenant because they're now the landlord, but very importantly, they can now
forfeit that lease. The lease that the current tenant is under, they now have the power of forfeiture
because they're the landlord of that person.

Now, in terms of overriding leases, please bear in mind this whole procedure only applies to
breaches that have resulted in a fixed charge having been paid, so rent, service charge, damages,
not other breaches. If the tenant is just in breach of repair, you can't do this procedure. I said that
the original tenant has 12 months when they've made the payment to ask this overriding lease.
They may not want to do it immediately, but obviously, they may want to do it at some point if the
problem carries on.
They can protect their rights to ask for this overriding lease. In registered title, they would put a
notice on the registered title, and in unregistered title, they would register a C (iv) land charge.
That's protecting their right to ask for the overriding lease. In terms of the original tenant’s power,
they still have the power to sue for breaches that occurred before they assigned the lease to
somebody else, but they can choose to assign that right to the incoming tenant if they want to.
You can see, in terms of under old lease is the original tenant liable forever under the contractual
term, it's an onerous responsibility. What about the original landlord then? What’s their position?
Well, the landlord also remains liable for the whole term of the lease even after they've assigned
the reversionary title to somebody else. That comes from a case called Stuart and Joy. In terms of
who can sue the original landlord, well, both the original tenant can if they need to, but also the
assignees of the original tenant.
If the original tenant has passed on their lease to somebody else, as long as that person has the
ability to do that, then they too can go after the original landlord. That comes from a case called
Celsteel v. Alton No.2. Again, this is a big deal for landlords under old leases. If they want to as part
of the lease, they could have added a clause in saying their liability comes to an end when they
assign the reversionary title to somebody else.
As soon as they sell that reversionary title and walk away, that's it. The original landlord also has
the right to sue on the covenants for the whole term of the lease, but if they assign their
reversionary title to somebody else, then that right will pass over to the assignee, so the person
who has bought their reversionary title, and they lose it. That happens under section 141 of the
Law of Property Act, and I'm going to come back to that section later.

In terms of the incoming, the new landlord, then the assignee as we call them, the assignee of the
reversion, they have a right to sue for covenants then under the lease, even those that were
breached prior to them owning the reversionary title because everything is passed over to them.
They can sue for things now, they're the landlord, but also for things that happened before.
If the original landlord, by the way, wants to keep their right to sue for things after they've
assigned the reversion to somebody else, they would need to get that right given back to them by
the current landlord. They give it away to then get it back, if you like. That's the positions of the
original landlord and the original tenant in old leases. Basically, they're both liable for the
contractual term of the lease.

Page 4 of 9
What then about where the original tenant assigns the lease to somebody else? We have a new
tenant coming in, so a new tenant under the original lease itself. For example, the lease is for 50
years, the original tenant stays therein for 10, and then they assign the remaining 40 years left on
that lease to somebody new. They come in and they're now the current tenant. What then is the
position of that tenant, the new tenant, following an assignment then of that lease?
Do they have the benefit of the covenants in the lease and do they have to comply with the
burden of those covenants too? The first thing you've got to decide is which rules apply to you
because to decide whether the benefit and the burden have run to the new tenant, you've got to
apply the relevant rules. Now, please note, because this is really important, that when you are
looking at which rules to apply, old leases pre 1st to January '96 or new ones post 1st to January
'96, please look at the date the lease was granted.
That's what defines which rules you're using, not the date of the assignment of the lease. I'm going
to give you an example. If the lease was granted in 1992, you are under the old rules. It is an old
lease because it was granted before the 1st of January '96. If an assignment happens at that lease
in 2004, that is irrelevant. That 2004 doesn't matter, you're looking at the date the lease was
granted.
That's what dictates which rules you're using. We are using the old rules, if you like, the old lease
rules. There is a two-part test here, and the two-part test is this, that the benefit and burden of the
covenants will pass to the new tenant if there is privity of estate between the landlord and the
tenant, and also, that the covenants touch and concern the land, and that comes from Spencer's
case.
We are going to look at those tests and look at each of them and what it means. First of all, there
must be privity of estate between the landlord and tenant. This simply means that the parties must
have the relationship of landlord and tenant. You've got your new tenant, find out who the
landlord is, and make sure that they have a direct landlord and tenant relationship in that sense.
To illustrate this, there is no privity of estate between a landlord and a subtenant because, in that
case, you've got the landlord, then you've got the tenant, then you've got the subtenant. The
landlord and the subtenant have no direct relationship. The landlord and the tenant do, so that's
what you're looking at. Just make sure they have that direct relationship of landlord and tenant.
That's your first test. As part of this test, if you like, the lease must be a legal lease.

The landlord and tenant must have the relationship under a legal lease. The lease itself must be a
legal one, and also the assignment that took place must have been a legal assignment. In other
words, it must have been by deed under section 52. There are different rules relating to equitable
leases. That's your first test, privity of estate. The second test then is this idea that the covenant
that you're looking at to see if the benefits passed or the covenant you're looking at to see if the
burden has passed depending on what the covenant is.

The covenant must touch and concern the land. The only covenants that will pass to the tenant,
both benefit and burden, are those that are deemed to touch and concern. Practically speaking
then, personal covenants will not pass. Only those that are proprietary in nature and actually affect
the land will pass. Now, we have a test from Swift Investments v. Combined English Stores. Here,
Lord Oliver laid down some guidelines as to what actually we mean by touch and concern, so what
amounts to touch and concern.
Each case will turn on its own facts because they are guidelines. You have to apply these
guidelines to each covenant you're looking at to see if it touches and concerns the land. It is a
three-part test, if you like, or three guidelines that you look at. Test is as follows. Number one, you

Page 5 of 9
have to look and say, “Does the Covenant benefit only the reversioner for the time being or does it
benefit any owner of an estate in land?”
To give you a practical example, if we are trying to look and see if the burden of a covenant has
passed to the new tenant, the first thing you do is look at the covenant and say, "Does this benefit
the reversioner only for the time being, in other words, the landlord? Or will this benefit absolutely
any estate owner out there?" If it's just the reversioner, then it's a strong indication that the
covenant only affects this land that we're talking about and it's proprietary in nature.
The second test is, does the covenant affect the nature, quality, mode of use, or value of the land?
Again, if the covenant is affecting one of those things, then it suggests the covenant is about the
land itself, that it's affecting it in some way. Therefore, it’s proprietary in nature. The last test is the
covenant personal. In terms of your looking to see if that covenant is expressed to be personal, if it
is, then the benefit or the burden of that covenant will not pass because it's not actually attached
to the land because it's personal.
Classic examples of covenants that touch and concern the land are things like covenants relating
to the use of the land. Residential only, not to be used as a business. A covenant to repair the
property or the land, a covenant by the tenant not to assign or sublet without the landlord's
consent because that affects the land itself. Also, a covenant to pay rent because, obviously, in that
sense, that is also affecting the land.
If you satisfy those tests, so there is privity of estates and the covenant you're looking at touches
and concerns the land, then that covenant can be enforced by or against a new tenant of the lease
by or against the landlord, because you apply these tests whether you're looking at the benefit
passing to the new tenant or the burden of a covenant is the same test that you're using. It could
be the new tenant trying to enforce a covenant against the landlord because they've got the
benefit, that's what they're trying to argue, or, on the other hand, it could be the landlord trying to
enforce the burden of the covenant against the new tenant.
It can go either way, but it's the same tests. One thing to remember here is that assignees of the
lease, so the new tenant, will only be liable for covenants whilst they are the tenant. They're not
liable for any breaches that happened before they came in. If they themselves assign the lease to
someone else, they will no longer be liable for any breaches that happen after they leave. It's a
different position to the original tenant.

Now, I mentioned before that these rules don't apply to equitable leases because there's no privity
of contract there. The benefit and burden passing to a new tenant of an equitable lease is more
complicated. Not something we're going into detail, but you've got some information in your
textbook. As I say, equitable leases there's no privity of contract. Equitable leases, there's no privity
of estate.
It doesn't apply there, so we have a different set of rules, a different test, if you like. Things like the
benefit can be expressly assigned over. The burden can't know. That's because of contractual
principles. You can't impose a burden on somebody else under contract. Burdens can be enforced
in different ways to do with equitable leases, so indirectly through the landlord's right of re-entry is
one of them.
Restrictive covenants under case law, by looking at it in a different way to do with the periodic
tendencies and things. As I say, in terms of equitable leases and this idea, it's more complicated,
but do have a look at it. What we're focusing on here with these rules is a legal lease because we
need that idea of the privity of estate. That deals with whether the benefit and burden passed to a

Page 6 of 9
new tenant under an old lease. What then about covenants passing to a new landlord under an
old lease?
We're still talking about leases pre the 1st of January 1996, but what we're talking about now is
that the original landlord has assigned the reversionary title, so quite possibly the freehold.
Reversionary just means the one above it. Once the lease is gone, it's the title that's next in line
superior. What's the position then where the original landlord has sold, assigned the reversionary
title to somebody else?
Again, the date of the assignment does not matter. Please look at the date the lease was granted
to decide which rules you're actually going to apply. This is a bit more straightforward for
landlords. Simply, the benefits of all covenants pass under section 141 of the Law of Property Act
1925 so long as they have reference to the subject matter of the lease, a little bit like the touch and
concern test.
Under section 141 of the Law of Property Act, if there's a new landlord coming in under an old
lease, the benefit of all covenants, so long as they have reference to the subject matter, that lease
will automatically pass to them. There's no tests as such that you have to apply. Reference to the
subject matter of the lease law means they need to be to do with the lease in the land. Hence, it's a
bit like the touch and concern.
Because the benefit of all covenants passed to them, what that means is that the new landlord
actually can sue for breaches that occurred before they even became the landlord. They do have
that power to do that because the old landlord has lost that right. That deals with the benefit of
covenants. What about the burden? Well, actually, it's the same idea. It's just a different section.
Under section 142 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the burden of all covenants that have reference
to the subject matter of the lease will also pass to the new landlord. They are obligated to perform
those covenants. You just got to see basically if they affect the lease itself. There are some limited
exceptions to this. One is where the landlord originally entered into a covenant to renew the lease
at the tenant's option, that will not automatically pass.
In order to make it enforceable, that would have to be registered and be protected. Also, an
original covenant by a landlord to repay a deposit is not going to automatically pass. It's not
deemed to touch and concern the land in that way. Finally, a covenant to sell the freehold to the
tenant can also not pass. It relates to the freehold, not the lease. It's not referenced to the subject
matter of the lease. Those are the limited exceptions.
Everything else, so long as the covenants affect the lease, affect the land, they will automatically
pass under statute to the landlord. Now, one thing that's slightly different is these bits of statute in
relation to the landlord actually apply to equitable leases as well. There's no privity of estate
needed in this test under section 141 or section 142. On that basis, they can apply to equitable
leases and it's not a problem. That's the rules in respect of old leases. Now, we're going to have a
look at the roles in respect of new ones.
You will be pleased to know, it's a lot more straightforward, even the old law. In terms of covenants
passing to the new landlord and the new tenant under new leases, here, I'm now talking about
leases that were granted after the 1st of January or on the 1st of January 1996. One thing I do just
want to say about this idea, the date of assignment is relevant. Just to hammer home that idea that
if you were looking at the date the lease is granted not of any assignment dictates the rules, but
clearly, if the lease was granted on or after the 1st of January '96, an assignment will have to be
after that date anyway, in that sense.

Page 7 of 9
For new lease, it's always going to be late to the assignment, but just always be looking for the
date of the grant. As I say, we commonly call these new leases. The reason being, as I mentioned
earlier, on the 1st of January '96, the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 came into force
and changed the rules. To make life a little bit easier, these rules apply to both legal and equitable
leases. The Act makes no distinction between them under section 28 of the Act, so that does make
life a bit easier.
Before we look at whether the covenants passed to the new tenant and the new landlord, let's first
of all just consider the position of the original parties again to that lease. On an assignment of the
lease, the original tenant is released from their covenants under section 5. They no longer have
liability. That is one of the huge changes of this Act, is to make sure that tenants do not remain
liable for the whole term of the lease even after they've assigned it.
Under section 5, they are released from those covenants. That is something, if you like, that
happens automatically under section 5. One thing the landlord may do, if they're a bit savvy, if you
like, is the landlord obviously originally signed up to this lease with that tenant and was very
happy with them. The landlord may be a bit more concerned about the new tenant that's coming
in. They don't know if they're going to pay their rent. They don't know if they're going to be a good
tenant.
No longer is the original tenant liable because they've been released, but what the landlord can
ask the original tenant to do is enter into something called an authorized guarantee agreement.
We call it an AGA for short, A-G-A, authorised guarantee agreement. The landlord can do this
under section 16. Basically, if the original tenant enters into an AGA, they are guaranteeing the
performance of the covenants of the assignee.
In other words, if the assignee commits a breach, the original tenant can be pursued under the
AGA. They're keeping themselves liable, basically. However, the AGA doesn't last forever. It only
lasts so long as the assignee is the tenant. If they assigned to somebody else, it comes to an end.
The landlord may then ask for another from that person going out, so it can go on. The only time I
would say of a situation that the original tenant will not be released from liability on an
assignment is if the assignment has not been made lawfully.
In other words, if the lease says that the tenant is to get the landlord's consent for an assignment
and the tenant doesn't bother getting the consent, they just do the assignment, that assignment
has not been made lawfully. In that sense, they would remain liable. They would only remain liable
though until the next lawful assignment, and that comes under section 11. That also applies to
assignments made by operation of law.
That's the original tenant's position, much better, following the Act. The original landlord then, it's
not quite as straightforward. The original landlord is not automatically released on an assignment
of the reversionary title. The tenant automatically is off. The landlord, not so much. Under section
6, they actually need to apply to the tenant to be released. If the landlord sells their title, the
original landlord, they have to ask the tenant to be released from their covenants under section 6.
The tenant, of course, can consent, which is fine, the landlord is then released, or if the tenant
ignores the notice, the request, and doesn't answer within a certain time, or if the tenant says, "No,
I'm not releasing you," then then the landlord can apply to the court to be released instead.
Obviously, if they're successful, they are released. Under section 11, again, if a landlord assigns
their title in breach of covenant or by operation of law, they can't serve the notice.
It's the same idea. You've got to be doing these assignments lawfully to be able to get out of
liability. Now, you may think that this isn't as fair on the landlord as it is on the tenant because the

Page 8 of 9
tenant is just automatic and they're off, and the landlord has to apply for it. Actually, in practice,
what some landlords are doing to avoid having to serve this notice requesting to be released, they
are simply putting a clause in the lease saying, "On an assignment, I am automatically released
from liability."
That way, they don't have to serve the notice request. This is known as an Avonridge Clause, if you
come across it, because it comes from a case called London Diocesan Fund v. Avonridge. London
Diocesan Fund v. Avonridge, and that's why we call it an Avonridge Clause. It's a way of an original
landlord making their life a bit easier. The very last thing to consider under the new rules is the
benefit and the burden of covenants passing and what are the rules.

Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For both the landlord and the tenant covenants, the
benefit and burden of all covenants will automatically pass on an assignment whether it's the
reversion or whether it's an assignment of the lease, except those expressed to be personal. That
comes under section 3. There are no tests as such to apply. When the lease is assigned, when the
reversion retitle is assigned, say if the burden of benefit have passed to the new parties, simply,
under section 3 of the '95 Act, all of them pass unless they're expressed to be personal.
The only one of the landlord's covenants that won't is the covenant to renew the lease by the
tenant's option. That one doesn't automatically go, but everything else does. What you can see
from that, there's no requirements of privity of estate. There's no touch and concern test. There's
no reference to the subject matter of the lease under section 141 and 142 for the landlord. All of
that is gone. All the covenants pass unless they're personal. That's all you need to look at.
In addition, for new leases, assigning landlords can also sue for breaches of covenant that
happened before they became the landlord. That's still there as well. Quite importantly, the
landlord's right of reentry is also automatically assigned as well under section 4. The rules are
there. Your '95 Act applies to the new leases, but do just bear in mind that sections 17 to 20 also
apply to the old leases as well.

Page 9 of 9