PALMER v PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 1262 (Ch) holds that Section 144 of Law of Property Act 1925 ( Landlord’s ability to charge a premium for CONSENT TO ALIENATION) and Section 19 of Landlord and tenant Act 1927 (dealing with all aspects of alienation) are NOT inescapably inconsistent. BOTH apply to a covenant requiring a premium for consent to assignment.
Subscribe
Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We’ll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.
"*" indicates required fields
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (64)
- Council Tax and Rates (88)
- Decision making and Contracts (301)
- Elections and Bylaws (42)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (146)
- General (29)
- Housing (180)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (126)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (262)
- Land, Goods and Services (87)
- Local Authority Powers (80)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (204)
- Social Care (94)
- Standards (26)
Disclaimer
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Comments are closed.
11KBW, 11 King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EQ | Tel: 020 7632 8500 | © 11KBW 2026