The parties had divorced and settled financial provision, but the former wife and her children came to need a house and one of the claimant’s properties became vacant, and she was allowed to occupy it as a tenant, with the majority of the rent being paid through housing benefit. The council refused to pay housing benefit because one of the occupants was the claimant’s child. The claimant sought possession. The court was asked whether the mistake as to the payment of benefit made the tenancy contract void.
Held: The husband’s appeal succeeded. Neither party had appropriated the risk of what would happen if housing benefit was not payable. The payment of benefits was fundamental to both parties before the shorthold tenancy was created. A condition was to be implied into the agreement on the basis of the strict approach to the implication of terms; the term was an implied condition that if housing benefit was not payable, the tenancy would come to an end. Neither party had been prepared for te judge’s variation of the existing maintenance arrangements, and he was wrong to proceed with a variation.
Judges:
Thomas LJ, Hughes LJ, Coleridge J
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 660
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd HL 15-Dec-1931
Contract – Mutual Mistake Test
Bell was director and chairman of Niger, a subsidiary of Lever Brothers Ltd who dismissed him, offering and paying pounds 30,000 compensation. Lever then discovered that Mr Bell had made secret profits at the expense of Niger for which he could have . .
Cited – Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd CA 14-Oct-2002
The parties contracted for the hire of a ship. They were each under a mistaken impression as to its position, and a penalty became payable. The hirer claimed that the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake should forgive him liability.
Held: . .
Cited – Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd v Leighton’s Investment Trust Ltd HL 1945
Wartime regulations were implemented which prohibited the building on land which was already subject to a building lease which required the lessees to erect several shops.
Held: Even if the doctrine of frustration could apply to a lease, the . .
Cited – National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd HL 11-Dec-1980
No Frustration of Lease through loss of access
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 . .
Approved – Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord SA 1988
A contract of guarantee was made, but based upon a term of fundamental importance which was mistaken as to the existence of certain machines.
Held: The court must first look to the nature of the purported agreement. Steyn J said: ‘Logically, . .
Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Cited – Krell v Henry CA 1903
Mr Henry contracted to rent a flat located on Pall Mall from the plaintiff, Paul Krell for the daytime and on the days of the forthcoming cornation procession.. He was told that he would have an excellent view of, but this was not written down. He . .
Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Butters and Others v BBC Worldwide Ltd and Others ChD 20-Aug-2009
In the insolvency of Woolworths plc, a subsidiary sought to have valued its shareholding in a company in which the defendants were co-shareholders. It was argued that an earlier agreement between them had not be fully superceded by a subsequent one. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Contract
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.254366