10 H.7.5a: 1494

In the Common Bench a writ of waste was brought and the plaintiff assigned as waste allowing an earthwall to stand uncovered so that it was destroyed by rain-storms; and he also assigned as waste allowing another wall made of wood to decay and also in cutting down ‘silber’ trees and apple trees in an orchard.
Rede and Wood. It seems that it cannot be adjudged waste in respect of the walls for waste cannot be adjudged in respect of any thing other than something which has permanent existence, but an earthwall cannot exist for more than ten or twelve years and if something that exists for so short a time is damaged that cannot be called waste. .
Keble (to the contrary). As to the timber wall that is waste because it is part of the free tenement and the defendant may not transform the buildings leased to him but must keep them in as good a state as he received them. And if this wall had been within a building it would be waste without doubt. For if I lease a house to a man in which there are several chambers and the lessee knock down the walls which divide the chambers and turn this house into a single chamber it is waste. For the same reason that the knocking down of a wall within a house is waste the knocking down of a wall outside a house will be accounted waste. . . .
Fineux. To my understanding (and he rehearsed the reasoning of Keble) and he also understood the waste assigned in the wall to be well assigned because by its destruction the inheritance is harmed and if the inheritance is harmed by the act or the negligence of the lessor it will be accounted waste. . . .
VAVASOUR, J. To the same purpose with respect to the trees. But as to the waste assigned in the wall, none has been assigned because it appears that it was uncovered at the time of the lease and so the lessee is not obliged to cover it. For if I lease a building that is unroofed to a man for term of years the lessee is not obliged to roof it. So the waste in the wall is not well assigned.
[1494] [Co Litt 53b (s)]
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.196740