Harnett v Maitland: 1847

The court was asked whether a tenant for years was liable for permissive waste.
Held: ‘As to the question, whether the action for permissive waste lies against a tenant for years, all the authorities are collected in the notes to Greene v. Cole, in 2 Saund. 252, where it is stated as clear law, that at common law the action only lay against tenant by the curtesy, tenant in dower, or guardian, but that by the statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. 1, c. 5, the action is given against lessee for life or years, or tenant pur auter vie, or against the assignee of tenant for life or years for waste done after the assignment. The same authorities are referred to in Vol. 1, p.323 b, where, however, it is said that the point cannot yet be considered as absolutely settled. We are all of opinion, however, that this declaration is defective on general demurrer, for not bringing the case within the class of persons who are liable for permissive waste, for want of an averment that the defendant was tenant for life or years, it being agreed on all hands that a tenant at will is not liable for permissive waste. On this ground there will be judgment for the defendant, without saying anything upon the other point.’

Judges:

Parke, Alderson, Rolfe and Platt BB

Citations:

(1847) 16 M and W 257

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196723