Links: Home

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being published to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  



Landlord and Tenant - From: 1900 To: 1929

This page lists 89 cases, and was prepared on 29 October 2014.


 
 Ellis -v- Rowbotham; CA 1900 - [1900] 1 QB 740
 
Fenner -v- Blake [1900] 1 QB 426
1900


Landlord and Tenant
Oral surrender of lease.
1 Citers



 
 In re Joll Gathercole -v- Norfolk; 1900 - (1900) 16 the Times LR 521; [1900] 2 Ch 616

 
 In Re Jolly; CA 1900 - [1900] 2 Ch 616

 
 Gentle -v- Faulkner; CA 1900 - [1900] 2 QB 267

 
 Ewart -v- Fryer; 1901 - [1901] 1 Ch 499
 
Stacey -v- Hill [1901] 1 KB 660
1901
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The surety for performance of the tenant's covenants under the lease which was "to remain in force concurrently with the lease for a period of five years" was discharged by the disclaimer of the lease by the insolvent tenant's liquidator. The lease was determined from the date of the disclaimer. The surety liability was also determined and that the action on the guarantee was not maintainable.
1 Citers


 
Walter -v- Yalden [1902] 2 KB 304
1902
QBD

Landlord and Tenant
The surrender of a lease by a lessee whose right and title to possession had been extinguished by effluxion of time gave the leaseholder no right of re-entry during the remainder of the term.
1 Citers


 
Stein -v- Pope [1902] 1 KB 595 CA
1902
CA
Romer LJ, Sir Richard Henn Collins MR
Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant
A lessee assigned the lease by an assignment which constituted an act of bankruptcy. He was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt and his trustee disclaimed the lease. During the interval between the assignment of the lease and the date of the adjudication two quarters' rent had fallen due, the lessors had sued the assignee and had recovered judgment for the first quarter's rent, and had commenced proceedings for the second quarter's rent. The action did not come on for trial until after the adjudication. Was the assignee of the lease liable for the rents notwithstanding the relation back of the trustee's title? Held: He was. The bankruptcy provisions, including the relation back of the trustee's title, were not provisions for the benefit of the bankrupt. As a general rule bankruptcy did not affect the rights and liabilities of persons not parties to the bankruptcy, except so far as might be necessary in the interests of the trustee and creditors and the administration of the bankrupt's estate in bankruptcy. It was not necessary in those interests to hold that the bankruptcy had freed the assignee from his liability to the lessor. The court reserved its opinion on what would have been the outcome if bankruptcy had supervened before any action had been take by the lessor against the assignee.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Budd-Scott -v- Daniell; 1902 - [1902] 2 KB 351

 
 Davis -v- Town Properties Investment Corpn Ltd; CA 1903 - [1903] 1 Ch 797
 
Wordsley Brewery -v- Halford (1903) 90 LT 89
1903


Landlord and Tenant
A notice to quit was invalid when it was served by the original lessor who had, prior to the service of the notice, granted a concurrent lease.
1 Citers


 
Serjeant -v- Nash Field & Co [1903] 2 KB 304
1903


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers



 
 Glenwood Lumber Co Ltd -v- Phillips; PC 1904 - [1904] AC 405

 
 Harris -v- Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd; 1904 - [1904] 2 Ch 376

 
 Bree -v- Scott; 1904 - (1904) 29 VLR 692
 
Hargroves, Aronson & Co -v- Hartopp [1905] 1 KB 472
1905
CA
Lord Alverstone
Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant
The tenants of a building of which the defendants were landlords sought damages after a rainwater gutter became stopped up and the defendants failed to clear it out for a few days after receiving notice of the stoppage. Held: The landlords were in breach of a duty of care to the plaintiffs and were liable for the damage done. If a building owner retains common parts which have to be maintained to protect the safe use of the demised properties, he has an obligation to take reasonable care that the parts he retains are not in such a condition as to cause damage to the tenant or to the premises demised.
Lord Alverstone said: "A person who maintains an artificial thing like a gutter used for the very purpose of carrying off the rainwater from the roof in an improper condition after notice may be said, in my opinion to be guilty of an act of commission, and he is, in my opinion, under a duty to take care that as a result of that act no damage happens to the occupants of the house."
1 Citers


 
Fear -v- Morgan [1906] 2 Ch 406
1906
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Lyttelton Times Company Ltd -v- Warners Ltd; PC 1906 - [1907] AC 476
 
Cavalier -v- Pope [1906] AC 428; [1906] UKHL 1
22 Jun 1906
HL
Lord Loreburn LC
Negligence, Landlord and Tenant, Personal Injury
The wife of the tenant of a house let unfurnished sought to recover from the landlord damages for personal injuries arising from the non-repair of the house, on the ground that the landlord had contracted with her husband to repair the house. Held: The wife was not a party to the contract, and the absence of any duty in respect of the letting an unfurnished house prevented her from relying on any cause of action for negligence. As to Langridge -v- Levy and George v Skivington: "In both these latter cases the defendant represented that the article sold was fit and proper for the purposes for which it was contemplated that it should be used and the party injured was ignorant of its unfitness for these purposes"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Morgan -v- Fear; HL 1907 - [1907] AC 425; 76 LJ Ch 660; 51 Sol Jo 702
 
Morgan -v- William Harrison Limited (1907) 2 Ch 137
1907


Landlord and Tenant
In some cases the relation of tenant at will may be expressly created by contract.
1 Citers


 
Markham -v- Paget [1908] 98 LT 605; [1908] 24 LTR 426; [1908] 1 Ch 697; [1908] 77 LJ Ch 451
1908


Landlord and Tenant, Contract
Parties had entered an agreement, with a draft lease attached to lease a coal seam. If the company anticipated damage, the lease allowed the company to leave sections unmined as support. The final lease allowed the miners to let down the surface, but now asked the miners to request obtain consent before leaving any coal un-mined. The surface was then also let to the plaintiff on a yearly tenancy. The miners sought consent as agreed, but the consent was withheld, and they proceeded. The surface property was damaged, and the tenant sought damages. Held: There was an implied covenant for quiet enjoyment in the lease of the house, but the owner of the land who was liable under that covenant could not seek an indemnity from the miner without joining in the trustees who had actually executed the lease.


 
 More -v- Ullcoats Mining Co Ltd; 1908 - [1908] 1 Ch 575
 
Cable -v- Bryant [1908] 1 Ch 259
1908

Neville J
Land, Landlord and Tenant
A tenant sought a right to ventilation enjoyed by land let to a tenant. It was argued that there could be no implied easement over adjoining property of a lessor where the adjoining property was already let out. It would be an easement in reversion. Held: The court avoided a decision on the point by resort to the doctrine of non-derogation from grant, which prevented the lessor and his successors from interfering with the lessee's use of the dominant land after the lease of the servient land had fallen in.
1 Citers



 
 Chalmer's Trustee -v- Dick's Trustee; 1909 - 1909 SC 761
 
Phipos -v- G & B Callegari (1910) 54 SJ 635
1910

Warrington J
Landlord and Tenant
(Obiter) The service of an upwards notice to quit on a head landlord by a head tenant had the same effect on a sub-tenancy as a surrender.
1 Citers


 
Gray -v- Owen [1910] 1 KB 622
1910


Landlord and Tenant
Even if one of the parties to a tenancy is acting under a mistake, there can be a surrender of a tenancy by law, provided that the mistake is not induced by the fraud of the other.
1 Citers



 
 Matthews -v- Smallwood; 1910 - [1910] 1 Ch 777

 
 Green -v- Rheinberg; CA 1911 - (1911) 104 LT 149

 
 Browne -v- Flower; 1911 - [1911] 1 Ch 219
 
West -v- Gwynne [1911] 2 Ch 1
1911
CA
Cozens-Hardy MR, Buckley LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The plaintiffs were assignees of a lease dating from 1874. The lease contained a covenant by the lessees against underletting the premises or any part thereof without the consent in writing of the landlord. Under the Act, landlords could no longer seek any fine for consent to an assignment. The lease predated the Act. Held: It was wrong to describe the Act as retrospective. It applied to events taking place after it came into effect. Section 3 does not annul or make void any existing contract; it only provides that in the future, unless there is found an express provision authorizing it, there shall be no right to exact a fine. The power to refuse consent to an assignment except upon the terms of paying a fine cannot fairly be called a vested right or interest.
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1892 3
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ind, Coope & Co [1911] 2 Ch 223
1911


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers



 
 Lurcott -v- Wakely & Wheeler; CA 1911 - [1911] 1 KB 905; [1911-13] All ER Rep 41; [1911] 104 LT 290; [1911] 55 Sol Jo 290
 
Corea -v- Appuhamy [1912] AC 230
1912


Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ayers -v- Hanson, Stanley & Prince [1912] 56 SJ 735
1912


Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance

1 Citers


 
Stait -v- Fenner [1912] 2 Ch 504
1912

Neville J
Trusts, Agency, Landlord and Tenant
The beneficiary under a bare trust is not thereby constituted the agent of the trustee. A break clause was operable by the tenant if he gave notice and if he should pay all the rent and perform all the covenants up to the determination of the lease. The question for the court was whether that condition for payment and performance was a condition precedent to be performed before the expiration of the term: "it must have been intended, in construing a covenant of this kind, that the question whether the lease does or does not exist after the expiration of the seven or fourteen years should be capable of being decided there and then and not left to future contingency leaving both the lessor and the lessee in uncertainty as to whether they are bound by the lease or whether they are not." In this case the condition was a condition precedent.
1 Citers



 
 Shanly -v- Ward; CA 1913 - [1913] 29 TLR 714

 
 Rickards -v- Lothian; PC 11-Feb-1913 - [1913] AC 263; [1913] UKPC 1
 
Reeves -v- Pope [1914] 2 KB 284
1914
CA
Lord Reading CJ, Buckley LJ, Phillimore LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The potential landlord agreed with the proposed tenant to build a hotel by a date, and the tenant agreed to take a lease when it was ready. The building was late in completion. The tenant took the lease but without prejudice to his claim for damages. The landlord then mortgaged its interest to the claimant. The tenant sought to set its damages claim off against the rent due to the mortgagee for periods since the date of the mortgage. The mortgage took effect under the common law as a conveyance, subject to the mortgagee's obligation to reconvey once the mortgage debt was paid off. The mortgagee had the legal title to the land. Held: The tenant's claim for a set-off failed. A transferee of the reversion is entitled to recover the rent in his own right, and therefore an equitable right of set-off which could have been raised in the case of a normal equitable assignment of a chose in action (including one which would now be recognised as a legal assignment by virtue of section 136) cannot be invoked.
Lord Reading CJ said: "It is perfectly plain that we are not dealing here with the right to set-off against the assignment of a chose in action, in which event quite different principles apply. . . "But that is not the real question in this case. The whole point depends upon whether or not Mr Crawford is right in saying that his client would be entitled to set off this claim, notwithstanding that it is not an interest in land. That is the whole matter in dispute. If what his client had was an interest in land which he desired to set off against the mortgagees in possession, no doubt the cases which he has quoted are in point as authorities for that proposition; but the moment it is ascertained that in this case the claim is not an interest in land, but if established is merely a right to damages against the mortgagor for breach of an agreement made in respect of, or in connection with, the land".
Buckley LJ said that the tenant's argument that the right to future rent which had been transferred was a chose in action was "wholly misconceived" and that the mortgagees were not assignees of the rent: "The mortgagees were entitled, as mortgagees, to the reversion expectant on the determination of the lease under which the defendant held, and as such mortgagees they were entitled in their own right to enforce payment of the arrears of rent. They were not assignees of the rent; they were persons claiming to enforce payment of rent as entitled thereto as mortgagees; they could have distrained for the rent."
"Then it was said that there was a right of set-off by reason of the fact that the damages in question were damages arising from a breach of contract to do something upon the land within a time.
"Now that, I conceive, is wholly a misconception. The doctrine is this – that whether there be a purchaser or mortgagee (it does not matter which) and the purchaser or mortgagee finds a tenant in possession, he is bound to assume that the tenant in possession has some interest in the land … [The damages gained under the building agreement] were not any incumbrance on the land, and the right to them was no estate or interest in any way in the land. The damages in question, therefore, are not within the principle which is to be found in and perfectly indisputably established by the cases which have been cited to us".
1 Citers



 
 Jolly -v- Brown; CA 1914 - [1914] 2 KB 109
 
Dooner -v- Odlum [1914] 2 Ir R 411
1914

Dodd J
Landlord and Tenant
(Kings Bench Division - Ireland) Dodd J said: "The rent, according to the authorities I have cited, is divisible. There is absolutely no evidence and no presumption upon which to found an inference that she holds an undivided share in the lands jointly or as tenant in common, in the ordinary sense of the term, with others. In one sense, of course, it may be contended that a number of tenants, each holding a divided portion and each contributing to the entire rent, are tenants in common . . But the authorities recognize a divided share, and the inference here is overwhelming that it is a divided share that the defendant holds."
1 Citers


 
Wheeler -v Keeble [1920] 1 Ch 57
1914


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers



 
 Dooner -v- Odlum; 2-Jan-1914 -
 
Goldstein -v- Sanders [1915] 1 ChD 549
1915


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers


 
John Haig & Co v Boswell-Preston 1915 SC 339
1915


Scotland, Landlord and Tenant
A tenant may be able to retain rent where the landlord was in material breach of his duty under the lease to maintain fixed equipment.
1 Citers


 
Lord Ashburton -v- Nocton [1915] 1 Ch 274
1915
CA
Swinfen Eady LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The parties to a lease can agree that an early payment of rent will satsify the duty to pay rent due later, displacing the rule that an early payment does not satisfy a later duty to make payment.
1 Citers



 
 Phelps -v- City of London Corporation; 1916 - [1916] 2 Ch 255

 
 Re Boyer's Settled Estates; 1916 - [1916] 2 Ch 404

 
 Malzy -v- Eichholz; CA 1916 - [1916] 2 KB 308

 
 In re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd; CA 1916 - [1916] 2 Ch 426; [1916-17] All ER 1050

 
 Fox -v- Jolly; HL 1916 - [1916] AC 1

 
 Malzy -v- Eicholz; CA 1916 - [1916] 2 KB 308; (1916) LJKB 1132; (1916) LT 9; (1916) 32 TLR 506; (1916) 60 Sol Jo 511

 
 Lovesy -v- Palmer; 1916 - [1916] 2 Ch 233; [1916-1917] All ER 1034

 
 Hart -v- Rogers; 1916 - [1916] 1 KB 646

 
 Cheater -v- Cater; CA 1917 - [1917] 21 KB 247
 
Barnes -v- City of London Real Property Co Ltd [1918] 2 Ch 18
1918

Sargant J
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord defendants had let various sets of rooms imposing on the tenants an obligation to pay a stated additional rent specifically for the cleaning of rooms by a house-keeper to be provided for the purpose. The agreements placed no express obligation on the landlords to provide for the cleaning of the rooms. Held: The obligation of the tenants to pay the rent for the particular service was an unqualified obligation to pay a definite periodic amount in respect of that service, the obligation to pay not being expressed so as to be conditional on the provision of the service or on the service of notice requesting payment. (Obiter) Such an obligation should be implied.
1 Citers



 
 Epsom Grandstand Association Ltd -v- Clarke; CA 1919 - (1919) 35 TLR 525
 
Epsom Grand Stand Association Ltd -v- Clarke [1919] WN 170
1919
CA
Bankes.Scrutton and Atkin LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
Premises on a racecourse were let to the defendants in part as a public house, and to occupy the other part themselves. The court was asked whether this was a letting of "a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling . . and every such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies" so that the 1915 Act applied. Held: The premises were "let as a separate dwelling". Bankes LJ: "The house was dwelt in by the defendants and let to them for that purpose. It is in the fullest sense a dwelling-house and none the less so because it is also a public-house. [Counsel for the landlord] contended that the Acts do not apply to houses if let for business purposes. I cannot accept that view. No doubt if the word "dwelling-house" is given its ordinary meaning the Act may seem to include cases not contemplated by the Legislature; but a restricted meaning would exclude many cases which were intended to be included. The object of the Legislature was to include all houses which are occupied as dwelling-houses provided they are of the class ascertained by their value as prescribed by the Act, notwithstanding that they are also used by the tenant for other purposes as well as those of a dwelling-house."
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915
1 Citers


 
Matthey -v- Curling [1920] 3 KB 608
1920
CA

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers



 
 Re Lyne-Stephens and Scott-Miller's Contract; CA 1920 - [1920] 1 Ch 472
 
Cole -v- Kelly [1920] 2 KB 10
1920
CA
Asprey J, Bankes LJ, Atkin LJ
Landlord and Tenant
In the absence of a contrary intention a concurrent lease passes to the concurrent lessee the concurrent lessor's accrued rights under the existing lease. The landlord has granted to the second lessee a pro tanto disposition of the reversionary estate.
Asprey J explained a holding over: "A holding over occurs where, after the expiration of the term originally granted, the tenant continues in possession with the consent of the landlord but without prior agreement as to the terms upon which the possession of the subject property is to be retained, which situation gives rise to a tenancy at will which tenancy by a subsequent payment of rent or by subsequent agreement may be converted into a tenancy of more fixed duration, e.g. weekly, monthly, etc."
Atkin LJ said that where, after the termination of any tenancy, the tenant holds over, and "the facts do not exclude an implied agreement to hold upon the terms of the old lease," then impliedly the old terms remain.
1 Citers



 
 Hemmings -v- The Stoke Poges Golf Club Limited; CA 1920 - [1920] 1 KB 720

 
 Ellis -v- Torrington; CA 1920 - [1920] 1 KB 399
 
Rossdale -v- Denny [1921] 90 LJ Ch 204; [1921] 1 Ch 57; [1921] 124 LTR 294; [1921] 37 TLR 45; [1921] 65 Sol Jo 59
1921
CA
LJ Sterndale, Sargant L.J
Contract, Landlord and Tenant
The plaintiff offered in writing to purchase a leasehold house, but the letter was to take effect 'on signing of a formal contract' and 'This offer is subject to a formal contract to embody such reasonable provisions as my solicitors may approve'. The offer was accepted, but the defendant backed out. Held: No formal contract was created. (per L Sterndale) "I am far from saying that there may not be an unconditional offer and acceptance of a binding contract although the letters may contain the words 'subject to a formal contract', but certainly those words do point in the direction of the offer or acceptance being conditional. I do not think it can be put higher than that; I think he is well founded in saying that the general trend of the decisions has been, where those words occurred, to hold that the offer or acceptance was conditional."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 United Dairies Ltd -v- Public Trustee; 1922 - [1922] 1 KB 469

 
 Matthey -v- Curling; HL 1922 - [1922] 2 AC 180; [1922] All ER Rep 1; (1922) 91 LJKB 593; (1922) 127 LT 247; (1922) 38 TLR 475; (1922) 66 Sol Jo 386

 
 Jackson -v- Simons; 1923 - [1923] 1 Ch 373

 
 Re Knight and Hubbard's Underlease; 1923 - [1923] 1 Ch 130

 
 Brewer -v- Jacobs; 1923 - [1923] 1 KB 528

 
 Keeves -v- Dunn; CA 1924 - [1924] 1 KB 685

 
 Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe -v- McOscar; CA 1924 - [1924] 1 KB 716

 
 Cockburn -v- Smith; 1924 - [1924] 2 KB 119
 
P Phipps and Co (Northampton and Towcester Breweries) Ltd -v- Rogers [1925] 1 KB 14
1925

Atkin LJ
Landlord and Tenant
A notice to quit a lease should be so expressed as to expire on the relevant date. "The date of determination must be the right date."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Boswell -v- Crucible Steel Co [1925] 1 KB 119
1925
CA
Atkin LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The question was whether plate glass windows which formed part of the wall of a warehouse were landlord's fixtures within the meaning of a repairing covenant: ". . . I am quite satisfied that they are not landlord's fixtures, and for the simple reason that they are not fixtures at all in the sense in which that term is generally understood. A fixture, as that term is used in connection with the house, means something which has been affixed to the freehold as accessory to the house. It does not include things which were made part of the house itself in the course of its construction."
1 Citers



 
 Houlder Brothers & Co Ltd -v- Gibbs; CA 1925 - [1925] Ch 575
 
Booth -v- Thomas [1926] Ch 397
1926
CA
Sir Ernest Pollock MR, Sargant LJ
Landlord and Tenant
A landlord, whose predecessor in title had enclosed a natural stream in an artificial culvert which was incapable of retaining it, was held liable to the tenant for injury suffered by the demised premises as a result of the outflow of water consequent upon the culvert falling into disrepair. Held: Without finding it necessary to decide whether liability arose on other grounds also, considered that it arose under an express covenant for quiet enjoyment contained in the lease. A mere act of omission on the part of a landlord is capable of constituting a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment, if, but only if, there is a duty to do something.
1 Citers



 
 Chaplin -v- Smith; 1926 - [1926] 1 KB 198
 
Lesley & Company -v- Cumming [1926] 2KB 417
1926
KBD
Roche J and MacKinnon J
Landlord and Tenant
The County Court had held that the landlords were not entitled to recover possession of a flat of which the defendant was tenant because the premises had not been taken out of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act by the tenant twice sub-letting furnished the whole of the premises with the landlord’s permission for periods of a year, which periods had expired before the commencement by the landlord of proceedings to recover possession. Held: Roche J "I do not think that the effect of the letting of the whole premises furnished to Mr Moore and Mrs Wilcox (with it is to be noted, the consent of the plaintiffs) was that the premises both became and continued for all time premises to which the Acts of 1920 and 1923 did not apply. In my opinion, at any rate, from the termination of those sub-tenancies Robert Cumming was in possession; his tenancy was a statutory one and the premises were not let furnished." Mackinnon J: "I do not suppose that Mr Stone (counsel for the landlord) would have sought to argue that Prout -v- Hunter went as far as to apply in a case where the dwelling house had been let furnished during the currency of the original lease, say in 1919 or 1920, but he does seek to say the letting furnished for, I suppose, however short a period after the tenant became a statutory tenant took the house out of the category of a protected house and put it into the category of unprotected house. It is only necessary to consider what startling results that contention would lead to in order to see that that argument must be wrong. For instance, if there be, as well there may be, a person in occupation of a house at Henley on Thames as what is called a statutory tenant, and supposing the owner of that house discovered that the statutory tenant let the premises furnished for Regatta Week in 1922, could he now, by virtue of that use of the house for a week 4 years ago, come to the court and say: give me possession of the premises, because by virtue of that temporary sub-letting so long ago the premises cease to be protected? I am far from saying because you find that some contention under these Acts leads to an extraordinary result that therefore that cannot be the effect of the Act, because the Acts are so worded that extraordinary results of one kind and another do follow; but I think these considerations assist in leading one to the conclusion, with which I agree, that the fact that a house has been let furnished for a period which had expired before proceedings are commenced cannot be relied upon as taking the house out of the protection of the Act in the way in which is suggested."
1 Citers


 
Griffin -v- Fillet [1926] 1 KB 17
1926

Wright J
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant gave notice to his landlord that steps to the dwelling-house needed attention but the lessee did not know that the steps were in fact actually dangerous. Held: The landlord's liability rested upon the lessor when subsequently he, though not his lessee, did acquire knowledge that the steps were actually dangerous.
Wright J said: "the lessor in my judgment was not liable for breach of covenant until he had been able to ascertain the nature of the repairs required. This he knew by 8th April, and I think he acted at his peril if he did not at once remedy the non-repair, either by temporary measures, if the permanent repairs could not be immediately effected, or by doing the permanent repairs, if this was practicable. If he did not do this he committed a breach of covenant."
1 Citers


 
Fisher -v- Walters [1926] 2 KB 315
1926
KBD
Finlay J, Mackinnon J
Landlord and Tenant
T complained of being injured when the ceiling fell in the house. The defect was latent. Held: L was not liable without notice of te defect.
Housing, Town Planning etc Act 1909 15
1 Citers


 
Newman -v- Slade [1926] 2 KB 328; [1926] 42 TLR 607; [1926] 70 Sol Jo 738
1926
KBD

Landlord and Tenant
A notice to quit given by reference to a calendar week (excluding the day on which it was sent, but including the day on which it is received) was effective, unless a contrary intention was shown.


 
 Morgan -v- Liverpool Corporation; CA 1927 - [1927] 2 KB 131

 
 Howson -v- Buxton; CA 1928 - (1928) 97 LJKB 749; [1928] LT 504

 
 Hicks -v- Snook; CA 1928 - (1928) 27 LGR 175

 
 Farr -v- Gillings; 1928 - [1928] TLR 249

 
 Viscount Tredegar -v- Harwood; HL 1929 - [1929] AC 72

 
 In re Drew (A Bankrupt); 1929 - [1929] IR 504

 
 Tay Salmon Fisheries Co Ltd -v- Speedie; SCS 31-May-1929 - [1929] ScotCS CSIH_4
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.