Q&A: Consequences of the registration gap
I own commercial premises which were let to a company – CRS Co Ltd – on a lease of 10 years in 2015. The lease contains a personal right for CRS to bring it to an end on 30 June 2020 on six months’ notice. CRS assigned the lease to another company – LMC Co Ltd – earlier this year.
LMC is occupying the property and has paid the June and September quarters’ rent and service charge. This morning I received a notice terminating the lease on 30 June 2020, but served by CRS. Surely the notice cannot be valid?
The validity of the notice will depend on which company was the registered proprietor of the property at the Land Registry at the date the notice was given. If LMC has not registered the assignment of the lease to it, then CRS remains the legal owner of the property and can exercise the break notice.
When registered freehold or leasehold land is transferred, the registration requirements under the Land Registration Act 2002 must be satisfied in order to vest the legal estate in the transferee or tenant.
In your case, this means that the transfer to LMC must be registered and noted on your title as landlord.
Until the assignment is registered, the transfer operates only in equity and the legal estate remains with CRS. The gap between the date of the deed of transfer/lease and the date that the legal estate vests in the transferee/tenant is known as the “registration gap”.
A break right contained in a lease can only be exercised by the registered legal owner of the interest.
In Brown & Root Technology Ltd and another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co  1 EGLR 39, the Court of Appeal decided that where the assignment had not been registered at the Land Registry the original tenant was entitled to exercise the break clause.
In the more recent case of Sackville UK Property Select II (GP) No 1 Ltd and another v Robertson Taylor Insurance Brokers Ltd and another  EWHC 122 (Ch);  EGLR 13, the unregistered assignee sought to get around the registration gap by arguing that – irrespective of the registration requirements – an assignee of a “new tenancy”, which would include the lease, was bound by the tenant covenants and entitled to the benefit of landlord covenants under the lease at the point of assignment under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995.
However, although the break clause could be viewed as a landlord’s covenant, because it obliged the landlord to treat the lease as ended, that obligation was only triggered once a valid break notice was served by “the Tenant”. In view of the lack of registration, “the Tenant” remained the original tenant.
So, if LMC has not registered the assignment at the Land Registry, the legal owner remains CRS and it is entitled to exercise a break notice which is personal to it.
I have just acquired the freehold of a lock-up shop, which is subject to a lease. The tenant is in arrears of rent. One quarter’s arrears will have been due for more than six months before I am registered as proprietor at the Land Registry.
Can I preserve my position by serving a notice under section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (the 1995 Act) on the tenant’s guarantor now?
The point remains undecided, but you probably can serve such a notice unilaterally.
Provided that you applied to be registered within the two-month period required by section 6(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002, the transfer has taken effect in equity but will not vest the legal title in you until registration takes effect: section 27(1). Until registration, the legal owner holds the legal title on trust for the equitable owner: Rose v Watson  2 QB 90; Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt (No 3)  1 EGLR 22.
None of the recent cases on the registration gap have considered service of a notice under section 17 of the 1995 Act, and the Act itself is ambiguous.
Section 17(3) provides that a guarantor is not liable unless “the landlord” serves notice within six months of the rent claimed falling due. Section 28(1) defines “the landlord” generally as “the person for the time being entitled to the reversion”. Section 17(6) includes “any person who has a right to enforce payment” of rent within the definition of “landlord”. Section 3(3) says that where the landlord assigns his interest, the assignee is entitled to the benefit of the tenant’s covenants “as from the assignment”. “Assignment” includes an “equitable assignment”: section 28(1). So, a landlord whose title is not yet registered is “a person who has a right to enforce payment” of rent. Unfortunately, by section 28(4), any reference to the landlord refers to all persons who jointly constitute the landlord. If “the person for the time being entitled to the reversion” for the purposes of the definition of “landlord” in section 28(1) means the registered proprietor, entitled to the reversion in law, and the unregistered assignee, entitled to the reversion in equity, section 28(4) directs they must serve a section 17 notice jointly.
However, the better view is that section 17(6) expands the definition of “landlord” for the purposes of serving section 17 notices, thereby entitling “any person who has a right to enforce payment” to serve a notice. On that basis, a landlord by an assignment which has not yet been registered can unilaterally serve a section 17 notice, so you can seek to preserve your position now.
This article was written by Partner Louise Clark at Charles Russell Speechlys and Barrister Nic Taggart at Landmark Chambers and appeared on 10 December 2019 in Estates Gazette. For more information, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com.
The Future of Property Careers
Join to our panel discussion and Q&A with industry leaders on the range of opportunities within the property and construction sector.
Oliver Park writes for LexisPSL Property Disputes on liability for costs of repair
Oliver considers the implications of the decision in City of London v Leaseholders of Great Arthur House.
Procuring modular housing: Is MMC becoming mainstream?
Is Modern Methods of Construction becoming mainstream? Read what it means for Development and Procurement here.
Dual class share structures: how do they work and what are the pros and cons?
Dual class share structures allow a shareholder, for example the founder, to retain voting control over a company.
Q&A: Talking the telecoms talk
Georgina Muskett and Jonathan Wills answer queries on Electronic Communications Code agreement.
Property Patter: Navigating the complexities of Pharmacy Property
Pharmacy property is a specialist area which contains many traps for the unwary.
COVID-19 Vaccination – can an employer make it compulsory for employees?
We review what legal issues to take into account when considering to make vaccination compulsory as an employer.
Linking ESG and Executive Pay
How does a business go about embedding a focus on strong ESG performance into the structures and culture of its organisation?
National Security and Investment Act granted Royal Assent
The Act establishes a new regime for the review of mergers, acquisitions and other transactions that could threaten national security.
Recent Trends In Firewall Legislation: BVI, Bermuda And Gibraltar
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Waverton on acquisition of Cornerstone Asset Management
Established in July 2010 and with offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, Cornerstone offers wealth management and financial planning advice.
What do the new Debt Respite Scheme Regulations mean for Landlords and Tenants?
This will provide legal protection from creditors in the form of either a breathing space or a mental health crisis moratorium.
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes five to Partner
The promotions are effective 1 May 2021 and are accompanied by one Legal Director and 15 Senior Associate promotions.
Risk allocation in commercial leases: the High Court considers rent suspension, insurance and frustration arguments
Read our summary of the full judgement on the latest Covid arrears case.
Charles Russell Speechlys boosts private wealth offering with the hire of an international tax team
Robert Reymond will be joined at the firm by Leigh Nicoll, Emma Tyrrell and Oliver Cooper.
Proposed Takeover Code Amendments – Key Changes
The Consultation Paper has now been followed by a corresponding response paper which made certain modifications to the initial proposals.
Building Back Better: Future Gazing
What’s next for the hospitality industry post-pandemic?
Building Back Better: Re-examining your proposition
Why hospitality businesses should re-examine their proposition now
Building Back Better: Real Estate and Restructuring
How and why should hospitality businesses re-structure post pandemic?
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Fudco Partnership on sale to Exponent-backed Vibrant Foods
Fudco is a family-owned business selling South Asian ethnic foods in UK and Europe.