The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Mecca case was wrongly decided. The deeming provision in the lease was decisive, or nearly so, contra indication of the idea that time should not be of the essence in such cases. Per Arden LJ: ‘It is relevant, however, to note that the lease is made between two commercial parties. If the tenant had been a consumer and the provisions for review of rent had not been individually negotiated (and no other enactment applied), it would be open to the tenant to argue that by virtue of the Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 S1 1999/2083, the provisions of proviso (2) are not binding on him’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Kay, Lady Justice Arden
Citations:
Gazette 20-Sep-2001, Times 02-Oct-2001, Gazette 04-Oct-2001, [2002] 4 All ER 264, [2001] EWCA Civ 1252, [2002] Ch 306
Links:
Statutes:
Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (S1 1999/2083)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
per incuriam – Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd 1984
. .
Applied – Henry Smith’s Charity Trustees Ltd v AWADA Trading and Promotion Services Ltd 1984
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal v London Borough of Newham Admn 10-Oct-2003
Each applicant had been accepted as homeless by the respondent, but was then offered alternative accomodation under terms which they found unacceptable. They argued that the Regulations applied. The council had disapplied one statutory guidance in . .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159890