Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred 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: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 68 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Pulleng v Curran (1980) 44 P&CR 58
1980
CA
Sir George Baker P, Cumming-Bruce LJ, Stephenson LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The question was whether under the 1977 Act the tenant occupied the premises for residential purposes. The landlord said that a business was also conducted from them. Held: The tenant had failed to establish that the business use had ceased. The court also his argument that, if his business use had ceased, he was protected by the Act of 1977. "There must be tens of thousands of similar leases where the person running the business lives above the shop". Having once taken the benefit of the 1954 Act to acquire a new tenancy, the tenant could not then switch to claim the benefit of a different statutory regime. The tenant could not claim the protection of the 1977 Act, because the tenancy had been for mixed business and residential uses, and it was not right in principle or appropriate in practice that the tenant should be able to switch his protection from the 1954 Act to the 1977 Act simply by ceasing to use the premises for business purposes.

Sir George Baker P said: "[I]t certainly strikes me as a most remarkable conclusion if a tenant, by simply ceasing to carry on his business …, could then say: "I am now in a position that I have the shop and all the premises subject to the Rent Restriction Acts; we have moved under that umbrella, and you, the landlord, can whistle for possession." He might indeed, if he was so minded, leave the shop to rot and simply confine himself to his upstairs premises.
The corollary, it seems to me… is that the tenant could stop, start, stop, start, as long as he liked, juggling between the two Acts of Parliament."
Rent Act 1977
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Elsden v Pick [1980] 1 WLR 898
1980
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Waiver or estoppel preventing reliance upon terms of lease. The court upheld an agreement between parties to waive the strict requirements of a notice after it had been served,
1 Citers


 
Family Management v Gray [1980] 1 EGLR 46
1980


Landlord and Tenant
Premises had been sub-let under full repairing leases and the disrepair which was the subject of the landlord's action against the head tenant was due to breaches by the sub-tenants of their repairing obligations, who had by the term date of the head lease applied for new tenancies under the 1954 Act. Held: There was no difference between the rental value of the properties in repair and their value out of repair. The reversion had to be valued subject to the rights of the sub-tenants to renew, and they could not, when renewing, pray in aid their own breaches of covenant in order to reduce the rent.
Events subsequent to the end of the lease, but operative or potential at that time might be allowed for when asessing the losses suffered.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)
1 Citers


 
Shah v Givert (1980) 124 SJ 513
1980


Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
If a landlord seeks to recover possession of property under Order 113, he must take the risk that if the defendant raises an arguable case that he has a tenancy, the matter must go to trial.
1 Citers


 
Weatherall v Smith [1980] 1 WLR 1290; [1980] 2 All ER 530
1980


Landlord and Tenant
A field was let under an agricultural tenancy. It came to be used for the purpose of giving riding lessons. The tenant sought protection under the 1954 Act. Held: The tenancy was within the Act. The term 'premises' in the Act referred to the land generally occupied under the lease, and did not mean a building. The time when the use should be assessed was the time at which the tenant sought protection under the Act.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954


 
 Cleve House Properties v Schildof; 1980 - (1980) CLY 1641
 
Polyviou v Seeley [1980] 1 WLR 55
1980


Landlord and Tenant
The landlord served two notices under the 1954 Act. Held: The tenant's counter-notice was out of time. If the first notice was valid, a counter-notice served within four months of the second but not the first was out of time.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24
1 Citers


 
Dodds v Walker [1980] 2 All ER 507
1980
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The tenant give his notice of his desire for a new tenancy on the thirty first day of the fourth month after the landlord had given his own notice terminating the tenancy, but that month had only thirty days. Held: The tenant's notice was out of time.
1 Citers


 
Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council [1980] 1 All ER 839
1980
CA
Roskill LJ, Denning MR, Cumming-Bruce LJ
Landlord and Tenant
In an appropriate case, a court will protect a contractual licence to occupy land by injunction or specific performance, where damages would not be an adequate remedy. A decree could issue where there was a wrongful repudiation of the licence, even before the licensee entered into possession.
Roskill LJ said: "Since the fusion of law and equity it is the duty of the court to protect where it is appropriate to do so any interest whether it is in estate or land or a licence by injunction or specific performance as the case may be."

Lord Denning MR said: "Since the Winter Garden case, it is clear that once a man has entered under his contract of licence, he cannot be turned out. An injunction can be obtained against the licensor to prevent his being turned out . . So I hold that the observations in Thompson v Park are no longer good law. I agree with what Megarry J said about them in London Borough of Hounslow v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd."
1 Cites


 
Fawke v Viscount Chelsea [1980] QB 44
1980


Landlord and Tenant
Depending on the evidence, a stepped rent may well be the best way to determine the rack rent value over a period of years so that an arbitrator might properly make such an award. This was particularly so where the landlord was in serious breach of repairing obligations, but was expected to deal with the repairs.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34(1)


 
 Johnson v Moreton; HL 1980 - [1980] AC 37

 
 Thomas Bates and Sons Ltd v Wyndham's Lingerie Ltd; CA 21-Nov-1980 - [1981] 1 WLR 505; [1980] EWCA Civ 3; [1981] 1 All ER 1077
 
National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] AC 675; [1981] 1 All ER 161; [1980] UKHL 8
11 Dec 1980
HL
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Roskill
Contract, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant's access to the premises was closed by the local authority because it passed by a derelict and dangerous building. The tenant argued that its tenancy was frustrated. Held: The lease was not frustrated. The lease had a term of ten years, and the interruption was temporary. The doctrine of frustration was developed as an expedient to escape from injustice and is a modern and flexible doctrine not constricted by any arbitrary formula. "Frustration of a contract takes place where there supervenes an event (without default of either party and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision) which so significantly changes the nature (not merely the expense or onerousness) of the outstanding contractual rights and/or obligations from what the parties could reasonably have contemplated at the time of its execution that it would be unjust to hold them to the literal sense of its stipulations in the new circumstances; in such case the law declares both parties to be discharged from further performance."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marjorie Burnett Ltd v Barclay [1980] EWHC Ch 1; [1981] 1 EGLR 41; [1980] 125 Sol Jo 199
12 Dec 1980
ChD
Nourse J
Landlord and Tenant
A lease was created of a shop, dwellings and out-buildings. By clause 6 the tenant had a right to renew the lease, with the new lease creating the same provision. The defendant claimed that as a perpetually renewable lease it took effect as a lease of 2,000 years. The landlord said it allowed only one renewal. Held: The lease was explicit in its terms and had created a perpetually renewable lease.
Law of Property Act 1922 Schedule 15, paragraph 5
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Allnatt Properties Ltd v Newton; ChD 1981 - [1981] 2 All ER 290
 
Dodds v Walker [1981] 1 WLR 1027; [1981] 2 All ER 609
1981
HL
Lord Diplock
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord served his notice to determine the tenancy on the last day of a 30 day month. The tenant served his counternotice on the 31st day of the month four months later. Held: Dismissing the tenant's appeal, the House found that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the tenant's application; he was one day late. When a notice was required to be given within a certain number of months, the period expired on the same day as the original notice, with the single exception of February.
Lord Diplock said: "My Lords, reference to a 'month' in a statute is to be understood as a calendar month. The Interpretation Act 1889 says so. It is also clear under a rule that has been consistently applied by the courts since Lester v Garland (1808) 15 Ves. Jun. 248, that in calculating the period that has elapsed after the occurrence of the specified event such as the giving of a notice, the day on which the event occurs is excluded from the reckoning. It is equally well established, and is not disputed by counsel for the tenant, that when the relevant period is a month or specified number of months after the giving of a notice, the general rule is that the period ends upon the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month, i.e. the day of that month that bears the same number as the day of the earlier month on which the notice was given.
The corresponding date rule is simple. It is easy of application. Except in a small minority of cases, of which the instant case is not an example, all that the calculator has to do is to mark in his diary the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month. Because the number of days in five months of the year is less than in the seven others the inevitable consequence of the corresponding date rule is that one month's notice given in a 30 day month is one day shorter than one month's notice given in a 31 day month and is three days shorter if it is given in February. Corresponding variations in the length of notice reckoned in days occur where the required notice is a plurality of months.
This simple general rule which Cockburn C.J. in Freeman v. Read (1863) 4 B. & S. 174, 184 described as being 'in accordance with common usage ... and with the sense of mankind,' works perfectly well without need for any modification so long as there is in the month in which the notice expires a day which bears the same number as the day of the month on which the notice was given."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 29(3) - Interpretation Act 1889
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Tulapam Properties Limited v De Almeida [1981] 2 EGLR 55
1981

Sir Douglas Frank
Landlord and Tenant
The lessee had given a covenant not to share occupation of the premises. He was claimed to be in breach of the covenant: "In a strict legal sense the word "possession" has a highly technical meaning, and the sharing of possession is an unknown concept. It has been said that a possession is single and indivisible. So when you get what might be termed a sharing of possession, the two sharers become one, as, say, joint tenants and one is back to the original concept. But "possession" also has a broader popular meaning, and it means the sharing of the use or occupation." Rather than giving the word "possession" in the covenant its strict legal meaning, with the result that the covenant against sharing possession would have no effect, it would be right to construe the covenant as precluding the sharing of occupation.
1 Citers



 
 Manson v Duke of Westminster; CA 1981 - [1981] 2 All ER 40

 
 Peninsular Maritime Ltd v Padseal Ltd; CA 1981 - (1981) 259 EG 860

 
 SL Sethia Liners Ltd v Naviagro Maritime Corporation; 1981 - [1981] 1 Lloyds Rep 18
 
Sampson v Hodson-Pressinger [1981] 3 All ER 710
1981
CA
Eveleigh LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance
The defendant owned a Victorian house which had been converted vertically into apartments. He let them to tenants under agreements containing the usual covenant of quiet enjoyment. One of the upper storey apartments had made use of the flat roof of the apartment below as a terrace. The terrace had been laid with tiles and when walked upon caused noise which was of considerable annoyance to the tenant of the apartment below. He sued both the landlord and the neighbour. His claim was framed in nuisance. Held: The landlord's appeal failed.
Eveleigh LJ said: "Apart from the question of common law nuisance the plaintiff’s lease contains the usual covenant for quiet enjoyment that is that the tenant may use the premises without interference by the landlord of those claiming under him. The contemplated use for which the original landlord let flat 7 to the first defendant was one which interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the plaintiff’s flat. Consequently that landlord was, in my opinion, in breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The plaintiff’s enjoyment of the demised premises was unlawfully interrupted by the first defendant, a person lawfully claiming under the lessor. The plaintiff has not pleaded the case on this basis, but it is a relevant consideration when I come to consider contribution."
1 Citers



 
 Smedley v Chumley and Hawke Ltd; CA 1981 - (1981) 44 P & CR 50

 
 Morrow v Nadeem; 1981 - [1986] 1 WLR 1381
 
Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd and Another [1982] Ch 511; [1981] EWCA Civ 1
1 Jul 1981
CA
Lord Denning MR, Ackner LJ, Sir Denys Buckley
Landlord and Tenant
The proposed tenant wanted to get into possession, and was given a key and paid a quarter's rent to the lessor's solicitors to be held as stakeholders, before the lease had been formally granted. An undated lease and counterpart were executed and exchanged, but said to be sent in escrow until certain conditions were fulfilled. When the proposed landlords were unable to remove a charge, the tenant sought to withdraw. The landlord said that he could not do so. The lease remained undated. Held: The tenant could withdraw, but owed rent from the date of delivery of the deed in escrow. The date of the lease was the date of the delivery in escrow. Lord Denning MR explained the doctrine of escrow: "What is the effect of an escrow before the conditions are fulfilled? One thing is clear. While the conditions are in suspense, the maker of the escrow cannot recall it. He cannot dispose of the land or mortgage it in derogation of the grant which he has made. He is bound to adhere to the grant for a reasonable time so as to see whether the conditions are to be fulfilled or not. If the conditions are not fulfilled at all, or not fulfilled within a reasonable time, he can renounce it. On his doing so, the transaction fails altogether. It has no effect at all. But if the conditions are fulfilled within a reasonable time, then the conveyance or other disposition is binding on him absolutely. It becomes effective to pass the title to the land or other interest in the land from the grantor to the grantee. The title is then said to 'relate back' to the time when the document was executed and delivered as an escrow. But this only means that no further deed or act is necessary in order to perfect the title of the grantee. As between grantor and grantee, it must be regarded as a valid transaction which was effective to pass the title to the grantee as at the date of the escrow"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lloyd-Jones v Church Commissioners for England; 1982 - [1982] 1 EGLR 209

 
 Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes; HL 1982 - [1982] AC 755
 
Baxendale v Davstone (Holdings) Ltd [1982] 1 WLR 1385; [1982] 3 All ER 496; (1982) 45 P & CR 127
1982
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers



 
 Trustees of Henry Smiths Charity v Hemmings; 1982 - (1982) P and CR 377
 
Holford Investments Ltd v Lambert [1982] All ER 497
1982


Landlord and Tenant

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5
1 Citers


 
Earl of Lonsdale v Attorney-General [1982] 1 WLR 887
1982


Landlord and Tenant
The task of interpretation a lease has to be carried out against the background knowledge which would reasonably be available to the contracting parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the execution of the lease, applying the ordinary words in the meaning then applicable.
1 Citers



 
 Preston Borough Council v Fairclough; CA 1982 - (1982) 8 HLR 70

 
 Greenwich London Borough Council v McGrady; CA 1982 - (1982) 46 P & CR 223
 
Russell v Booker [1982] 263 EG 513; [1982] 2 EGLR 86
1982
CA
Slade LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The leased premises consisted of a dwelling house and agricultural land which had constituted an agricultural holding. The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the tenancy out of the protection of the Agricultural Holdings Act into the protection of the Rent Act. Held: There was no new contract and it was the terms of the original agreement which were the essential factor in deciding whether the tenancy was one under which the dwelling house was “let as a separate dwelling” within the meaning of s 1 of the Rent Act 1977. The letting was for agricultural purposes and was held to be quite inconsistent with “the letting of the house as a separate dwelling-house” for the purposes of s 1 of the Rent Act 1977. The court set out a series of propositions for dealing with such a situation. A subsequent contract may establish a different use and a unilateral abandonment of agricultural use does not necessarily bring a tenancy within the Rent Act.
Rent Act 1977
1 Citers



 
 Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss; CA 1982 - [1982] 2 All ER 890; [1982] 1 WLR 1019

 
 Wycombe Health Authority v Barnett; CA 1982 - (1982) 264 EG 619; (1982) 5 HLR 84
 
Sedac Investments Ltd v Tanner and others [1982] EWHC Ch 1; 264 EG 615; [1982] 1 WLR 1342; (1982) 44 P&CR 319; [1982] 3 All ER 646
6 May 1982
ChD
Michael Wheeler QC J
Landlord and Tenant
The court was asked whether the plaintiff lessors were entitled to leave to commence proceedings against the lessee defendants for damages under section 1(2) of the 1938 Act for breach of a repairing covenant, even though the lessors had themselves remedied the breach before purporting to give the lessees a notice such as is specified in section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 - Law of Property Act 1925 146(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Hancock and Willis v GMS Syndicate Limited [1983] 1 EGLR 70
1983
CA
Eveleigh LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The solicitor tenants moved to larger premises and for six months licensed the subject premises to others save for the wine cellar and save that they reserved to themselves the right to use the dining area twice a month. Held: The thread of continuity of occupation had been broken: "The words with which we are concerned import, in my judgment, an element of control and user and they involve the notion of physical occupation. That does not mean physical occupation every minute of the day, provided the right to occupy continues. But it is necessary for the judge trying the case to assess the whole situation where the element of control and use may exist in variable degrees. At the end of the day it is a question of fact for the tribunal to decide, treating the words as ordinary words in the way in which I have referred to them."
1 Citers


 
R P Howard Ltd and Witchell v Woodman Matthews and Co (a firm) [1983] BCLC 117; [1983] QB 117
1983

Staughton J
Landlord and Tenant, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
The solicitor defendant knew that the company was a family company effectively run by Mr Witchell from whom they received their instructions. The question raised was as to the duty of the solicitor to company and director. Held: There is no necessary legal impediment to a professional adviser owing concurrent duties both to a company and to its members or to its directors. The solicitor owed a duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill in connection with his client's business, the precise nature of his duty would depend inter alia upon the experience of his client and therefore an inexperienced client was entitled to expect a solicitor to take this into consideration in giving advice. The defendant was negligent in omitting to remind the plaintiffs of the need to initiate an application to the County Court in order to obtain the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Staughton J said: 'In my judgment, in the circumstances of this case, Mr Witchell as well as the company was the client of Mr Mason. That seems to me to reflect the reality of the situation. Mr Mason knew that Mr Witchell … was the company. He probably knew that Mr Witchell derived his livelihood and some profit from the company, and was vitally concerned in its well-being. Mr Witchell had first been his personal friend, and had then come to him in connection with other matters for legal advice, both as the representative of the company and in a personal capacity. When Mr Witchell sought his advice on . . [a matter concerning the company] Mr Mason owed a contractual duty of care both to the company and to Mr Witchell."
1 Citers


 
Evans Construction Co Ltd v Charrington and Co Ltd [1983] QB 810; [1983] 2 WLR 117
1983
CA
Donaldson LJ
Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought a new lease and served a notice. The notice named the former landlord not the current landlord. Held: Order 20 could be used to correct the name where the error was a mere mistaken description of the correct party, but not a mistake as to the actual identity of the party. No injustice would be created here by requiring the correct landlord to make good his reply.
Donaldson LJ said: "In applying Ord. 20, r. 5 (3) it is, in my judgment, important to bear in mind that there is a real distinction between suing A in the mistaken belief that A is the party who is responsible for the matters complained of and seeking to sue B, but mistakenly describing or naming him as A and thereby ending up suing A instead of B. The rule is designed to correct the latter and not the former category of mistake. Which category is involved in making any particular case depends upon the intentions of the person making the mistake and they have to be determined on the evidence in light of al the surrounding circumstances. In the instant case I have not the slightest difficulty in accepting Mr. Greenwood's assertion that he intended to sue the relevant landlord under the Act. After all, he was responding on behalf of his lessee client to a notice to quit given on behalf of the landlord and it would have been surprising, to say the least, if he had thought that it was appropriate to respond by claiming a new lease from the managing agent or other stranger to the landlord and tenant relationship. Accordingly I would conclude that he made a genuine mistake of a character to which Ord. 20, r. 5 (3) can apply."
RSC Order 20 r5
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Edicron v Whiteley [1983] 1 EGLR 79
1983


Landlord and Tenant
The tenant claimed compensation on the termination of the lease. He had occupied part of the premises for more than 14 years, but the rest for only 5 years. Held: The Act required only that some part of the building had been occupied, so long as the whole was occupied at the date of service of the landlord's notice resisting a new lease. The tenant was entitled to compensation at double the rateable value for all the premises.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

 
Centrovincial Estates plc v Bulk Storage Ltd [1983] 2 EGLR 45
1983

Harman J
Landlord and Tenant
In a lease, the term 'original tenant' was to refer to the person to whom the lease had originally been granted.
1 Citers


 
Cottage Holiday Associates Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners 1983 STC 278; [1983] 2 WLR 861
1983

Woolf J
VAT, Landlord and Tenant
The taxpayer had been assessed to VAT on the supply of time share holiday cottages. The supply was of an eighty year lease to each tenant with the right to occupy for one week in each of the eighty years. The taxpayer argued that the supply qualified for zero rating. Held: The argument failed. The making of such a lease did not amount to the grant of a "major interest" in a building and fell outside the intended scope of item 1 under the 1972 Act.
Finance Act 1972
1 Citers



 
 Hill v Rochard; CA 1983 - Times, 01 February 1983; [1983] 1 WLR 478

 
 Leeward Securities Ltd v Lilyheath Properties Ltd; 1983 - [1984] 2 EGLR 54; (1983) 271 EG 279
 
Hart v Emelkirk Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1289
1983

Goulding J
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord had failed entirely to comply with his repairing covenant. Held: The court was able to appoint a receiver of rents in circumstances where all the tenants were agreeable to such a course being taken.

 
Chez Gerard Ltd v Greene [1983] EGLR 79
1983
CA

Landlord and Tenant

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Tarjomani v Panther Securities Ltd; CA 1983 - (1983) 46 P&CR 32
 
Westminster (Duke of) and others v Guild [1983] EWCA Civ 1; [1984] 3 WLR 630; [1985] 1 QB 688; [1983] 48 P&CR 42; [1983] 267 EG 762; [1984] 3 All ER 144
30 Mar 1983
CA
Stephenson LJ, Kerr LJ, Slade Lj
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to repair the building. Held: The court refused to accept any implication of a duty at common law on a landlord to repair a property under a lease except where it was explicitly imposed. Slade LJ said: 'for the purpose of considering whether the suggested contractual obligation falls to be implied in the present case, we can see no justification for applying a test more favourable to the defendant than the test applicable to the construction of any ordinary commercial lease of unfurnished premises or land which does not fall into a special category.'
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
C and P Haulage v Middleton [1983] EWCA Civ 5; [1983] 1 WLR 1461; [1983] 3 All ER 94
27 Jun 1983
CA
Ackner LJ, Fox LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The parties entered into an agreement allowing the defendant to occupy the plaintiff's land. They had disputed whether it was a licence or a lease. The occupier had expended sums on improving the premises, but had then been summarily ejected. He now claimed damages. Other premises had become available and he otherwise had no losses, and indeed had not had to pay rent for what should have been his notice period. The court refused to award damages by reference to wasted expenses where the expenses would have been wasted in any event by reason of the terms of the contract.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Guys'n'Dolls v Sade Bros [1984] 1 EGLR 103
1984
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers


 
Selous Street Properties v Oronel [1984] 1 EGLR 50
1984
ChD
Hutchinson J
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant had made unauthorised alterations to the premises by the construction of some toilets, in breach of covenant. The position was later regularised with a licence from the landlord, reciting that the lessee had made alterations to the demised premises in contravention of the covenant against alterations and provided that the lessor authorised the retention of those alterations in consideration of certain covenants. Those covenants included a covenant at the expiration or sooner determination of the lease if required by the lessor and at the lessee's expense to reinstate the demised premises by removing the works and making good. Held: Hutchinson J rejected the argument that the grant of the licence amounted to forbearance by the lessor for reasons "it is difficult see to how, even allowing that forbearance adds something to neglect, it can sensibly be said to envisage a binding agreement not to enforce the covenants. I should add, in any event, that I am not convinced by an argument that depends on importing to the word 'forbearance' some significantly different meaning to that connoted by the word 'neglect', because it is common experience to find that legal documents, like the Book of Common Prayer, use two words to convey the same meaning."
1 Citers


 
Allied London Investments Ltd v Hambro Life Assurance Ltd (No 2) [1984] 1 EGLR 16
1984
ChD
Walton J
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
The lessors sued the original lessees for rent due under the lease after the term had been assigned to another. The lessors had given a licence to assign and the licence contained a guarantee from a third party to the lessors that the assignee would pay the rent etc. Subsequently the lessors released the guarantee. The original lessees contended that the release of that guarantee released them from their covenant in the lease to pay the rent. The obligation was in the following form: "The tenant for itself and its assigns and to the intent that the obligations may continue throughout the term covenants with the landlord as set out in the third schedule hereto." Held: The court rejected that contention: "it is quite clear that the position is not as between the assignee and the original lessee that of principal debtor and surety." The fact of assignment mattered "not one jot or tittle."
Land Registration Act 1925 24(1)
1 Citers


 
Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd [1984] 2 EGLR 137
1984


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers


 
Plumb Bros v Dolmac (Agriculture) Ltd [1984] 2 EGLR 1
1984
CA

Landlord and Tenant
As part of an agreement made between the landlord and tenant of an agricultural holding, the landlord agreed not to seek an increase in the rent for five years. Within the five year period the landlord demanded arbitration in accordance with the statutory triennial timetable. The Court of Appeal held that the demand for arbitration was ineffective because of the agreement.
1 Citers


 
Dickinson v Boucher [1984] 1 EGLR 12
1984


Landlord and Tenant
A notice to pay rent which demands a greater sum than that which is actually due will be invalid. The action for recovery of possession is based on the failure to comply with the demand, not the fact of arrears. The purpose of the notice is to tell the tenant precisely what he must do in order to avoid the loss of his tenancy.
Agricultural Holdings (Notice to Quit) Act 1977 Case D
1 Citers


 
Henry Smith's Charity Trustees Ltd v AWADA Trading and Promotion Services Ltd [1984] 1 EGLR 116
1984


Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers


 
McGreal v Wake (1984) 269 EG 1254
1984


Landlord and Tenant
A landlord has the right to enter his premises for the purpose of carrying out the work required under his covenant for repair.
1 Citers


 
Elmcroft Developments Ltd v Tankersley-Sawyer [1984] 1 EGLR 47; (1984) 270 EG 140
1984
CA
Ackner LJ, Watkins LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The premises were a part of a late Victorian purpose-built mansion block consisting of 27 flats, including seven basement flats. They formed part of a larger terrace of buildings of a similar character and provided high-class accommodation in a sought-after fashionable area of London. The provision of a damp-proof course was a repair under a landlord's covenant which required the landlord to "maintain and keep the exterior of the building and the roof, the main walls, timbers and drains thereof in good and tenantable repair and condition". Held. The remedial work necessary to eradicate the rising damp was the installation of a horizontal damp-proof course by silicone injection and formation of vertical barriers by silicone injection. This was within the landlord's repairing covenant. It was necessary in order to repair the walls and, although it involved improvement over the previous ineffective slate damp-proof course, having regard to the nature and locality of the property, this did not involve giving the tenant a different thing from that which was demised. The court distinguished Lamdin because it related to business premises which were over 100 years old, whereas this case related to a recent letting "of what was built as a separate self-contained flat in a high-class fashionable area".
Lord Justice Ackner said: "there was constructed into the walls what was intended to be a damp-proof course, consisting of slates laid horizontally. These existed in the external and the party walls of the flat, but, owing either to a defect in design or construction or bad workmanship, this layer of slates intended to be a damp-proof course was ineffectual because it was positioned below ground. The result was obvious. It allowed moisture to be drawn up from the ground by capillary action, with the inevitable result that the flats were in a damp condition, rising damp resulting from what was described as the bridging of the damp-proof course, and parts of the interior of main walls of the flats had been adversely affected up to a hight of about 1 to 1.5m." and "To my mind it is unarguable that the state of that flat in particular, bearing in mind the age, character and locality of the flat was such as to be quite unfit for the occupation of a reasonably minded tenant of a class who would be likely to take it -- very probably unfit for any tenant...."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Yuthiwattana [1984] 128 SJ 661; [1984] Crim LR 562
1984
CACD

Landlord and Tenant, Crime
The defendant appealed against his convictions under the 1977 Act. Held: Under section 1(2) the deprivation of occupation for one day was insufficient. To constitute an offence, the deprivation had to take the character of an eviction. However, the appeal against the offence under section 1(3) failed. It was sufficient to establish that the acts, including in this casse an omission to act, complained of were calculated to interfere with the peace and comfort of the occupier and done with the intention of causing him to leave. In this case, the landlord's failure to replace a lost key was found to be an "act" of harassment against a tenant.
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 1(2) 1(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Allnatt Properties Ltd v Newton [1984] 1 All ER 423
1984

Sir Robert Megarry V-C
Landlord and Tenant
A business lease contained a clause to the effect that if the tenant wished to assign the premises he should first offer to surrender them to the landlord for the equivalent of the net premium value. If the landlord did not accept the offer then the tenant might apply to him for consent to assign such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant made an offer to surrender which the landlord accepted. The tenant then, being dissatisfied with the price offered, purported to withdraw his offer. The landlord sued for specific performance of the contract he alleged to exist. The tenant contended that any such agreement was avoided by s.38(1). Held: The agreement if performed would preclude the tenant applying for a new tenancy at the end of the term, and it was void. However, the provisions providing the machinery for the conclusion of the agreement were not: "In short, until it is known whether the landlords have accepted or rejected the offer to surrender it cannot be known whether there is any agreement which will preclude an application or request, within the meaning of the subsection : there may or may not be. It will be observed that all that cl 3(21)(b) does is to require an offer to be made; it depends on what happens to that offer whether there ever comes into being an agreement which offends against the subsection. It is not as if the sub-clause gave the landlords an option or other right to require the tenant to surrender the lease. In my view, the sub-clause does not fall within the subsection, but stands at one remove from anything that does. It seems to me that the subsection, as construed in Joseph v Joseph, is perfectly adequate to guard against the mischief which it envisages if it strikes down the actual agreement to surrender, and that there is no need to construe the subsection so as to make it extend to the mechanism for producing an offer which, if accepted, would be invalidated. Nor do I feel any more enthusiasm than was felt by the Court of Appeal in Joseph v Joseph for enabling either party to a lease to escape from his bargain further than is necessary to give effect to the subsection and its manifest purpose."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 38(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Associated Deliveries Ltd v Harrison; CA 1984 - [1984] 2 EGLR 76; (1984) 272 EG
 
Yewbright Properties Ltd v Stone [1984] P&CR 402
1984
CA
Megaw J
Landlord and Tenant
When considering the reasonableness of the alternative accomodation offered by the landlord to a tenant, its proximity to the workplace of the tenant and of his family must be considered. What is reasonable is a question of fact in each case. Megaw J: "The most that the judge could have done, if he could have done so, would have been to make a future and conditional order - conditional on the repairs being done, presumably, within some stated time and the maisonette having by then been put in a condition in which it would objectively have been regarded as suitable. There are, no doubt, cases where, although the offered accommodation is not immediately available, a judge can properly make an order to take effect a future date. Whether the judge here could or should have found it possible to take such a course on the facts as they were before him, and the facts that remain unknown, on the evidence of this case I do not need to speculate."

 
Hampstead Way Investments v Lewis-Weare [1985] 1 All ER 564
1984


Landlord and Tenant
The tenant claimed security of tenure saying that he occupied the premises as a 'separate dwelling'. He managed the night club, and worked until the early hours each night and slept at the flat on five nights during each week. All his other living activities took place at property of his wife. Held: He did not have a protected tenancy.

 
Wainwright v Leeds City Council [1984] 1 EGLR 67; (1984) 270 EG 1289
1984
CA
Dunn LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered the landlord's covenant for repair of residential property. Held: The installation of a damp-course in property which did not previously have one was not a repair: "applying the facts of that case to the facts of this case, the tenant in this case took a house without a damp-proof course. What he is asking from the landlord is a house with a damp-proof course, which is a different thing to the house which was the subject of the demise."
The fact that a landlord is a local authority which is discharging a social purpose in providing housing for people who cannot afford it does not make the burden of the covenant greater on that landlord than it would be on any other landlord. The construction of the covenant must be the same whether it is implied as a local authority's covenant in a tenancy of a council house or is expressly included as a tenant's or landlord's covenant in a private lease which is outside section 32.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Cairnplace Limited v CBL (Property Investments) Co Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 315
1984


Landlord and Tenant
On a statutory renewal under the 1954 Act, the court would not impose a requirement on the tenant to pay the landlord's costs so far as this would contravene the intention of the 1958 Act. The tenant may also be required to provide a guarantor.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - Costs of Leases Act 1958

 
South Tottenham Land Securities Ltd v R and A Millett (Shops) Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 710
1984
CA
O'Connor LJ, Oliver LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered on what date the increased rent determined by a rent review fell due for payment. Held: O'Connor LJ refused the appeal: "If the parties choose to put into a lease that rent is due on quarter days, then there are good grounds for saying, where arrears arise in this fashion [i.e. retrospectively on the determination of a rent review] that they should not be due until the next following quarter day."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
City Hotels Group Ltd v Total Property Investments Ltd [1985] 1 EGLR 253
6 Jul 1984

Judge Paul Bake, QC
Landlord and Tenant
The landlords had received a request for a consent to a proposed assignment of the lease. They did not, in terms, refused consent, but had not given it notwithstanding a considerable passage of time and lengthy correspondence. The court was asked whether it had been unreasonably withheld. Held: The landlords were unreasonably withholding their consent, and the tenants were entitled to proceed with the proposed assignment without the landlords' consent.
1 Citers


 
Banfai v Formula Fun Centre Inc 1984 CanLII 2198; 34 CCLT 171(HCJ); [1984] OJ No 3444
13 Dec 1984

O'Leary J
Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant
Canlii Ontario - Superior Court of Justice - The defendants operated an automobile-racing amusement ride on land adjacent to the plaintiffs' motels. The plaintiffs and their customers complained of the noise emanating from the defendants' ride. The plaintiffs brought an action in nuisance against the defendants seeking damages and an injunction.
Held, there should be judgment for the plaintiffs.
The noise created by the racing cars was not in keeping with the other noises in the vicinity. Generally speaking it was considerably louder and sharper than those noises, and was pervasive, intrusive, and annoying, while the other sounds of the area generally were not. In addition, the fumes and smoke from the track were completely out of keeping with such air pollution as otherwise existed in the area. The noise from the track by itself constituted an unreasonable, undue and material interference with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their property. The complaints of the plaintiffs did not arise from any abnormal sensitivity or delicacies on their part. The noise from the track was such that a high percentage of normal persons would find the noise disturbing and unacceptable. It was a noise that the plaintiffs should not have to put up with, given the character of the area in which they conduct their business.
An owner of land who leases it knowing the tenant is going to use it for an automobile-racing amusement ride is liable for the nuisance created by the tenant. Although normally an owner is not liable for the nuisance committed by a tenant, where the nuisance arises "from the natural and necessary result of what the landlord authorized" or "the use from which the damage or nuisance necessarily arises was plainly contemplated by the lease", then the owner-landlord is liable.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.