Case Comment : Challenging the validity of leasehold guarantees: undue influence, non-est factum and formality issues

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

Case: Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme Trustees v Yardley [2011] EWHC 1380 (QB) (QBD).
The recent case of Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme Trustees v Yardley, nicely illustrates, inter alia, the impact of the contractual defences of undue influence and the plea of non est factum in the context of avoiding liability under leasehold guarantees, within the setting of the landlord and tenant relationship. Additionally, the case also gives us an insight into the possible application of other technical defences relating to the law of formalities for leases. Judgment in this case was handed down on September 30, 2011.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)248-254
Number of pages7
JournalConveyancer and Property Lawyer
Volume2012
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Keywords

  • authority
  • validity
  • undue influence
  • signatures
  • non est factum
  • guarantors
  • guarantees
  • business tenancies

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Case Comment : Challenging the validity of leasehold guarantees: undue influence, non-est factum and formality issues'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this