Category: Landlord and Tenant

Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd: CA 18 May 2012

W appealed against the striking out as an abuse of its request for a declaration that the tenants of the flats at Dolphin Square were entitled to acquire its freehold from the respondents. They had previously served and withdrawn a notice claiming the right.
Held: The tenants’ appeal was allowed. CPR 38.7 did not operate to restrict the right gfiven by the 1993 Act to make a second claim after a period of one year had expired from the withdrawal of the first. The statutory right to serve successive notices necessarily carried with it the right to make successive applications to the court.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Longmore. Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 666, [2012] HLR 38, [2012] WLR(D) 151, [2012] 2 EGLR 76, [2012] LandTR 36, [2012] 1 WLR 2752, [2012] 4 All ER 148, [2012] CP Rep 33, [2012] 32 EG 42, 2012] 2 PandCR 8

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Development Act 1993 22 823, Civil Procedure Rules 38.7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Provident Life and Pensions Ltd ChD 14-Sep-2011
The defendant sought to have the claim struck out as an abuse of process, saying that it was a repeat of a claim previously made and withdrawn.
Held: The application succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457822

Telchadder v Wickland (Holdings) Ltd: CA 16 May 2012

The court was asked as to the scope of the security of tenure conferred on occupiers of mobile homes owned by them and stationed under licence on pitches in protected residential sites. The tenant was accused of anti-social behavuour in have paraded in military combat uniform, obscuring his face. The tenant appealed against grant of the landlords claim for possession. The court below had held that, pursuant to the tenancy agreement Wickland was entitled to terminate its agreement with Mr Telchadder forthwith. Pending determination of the appeal and, were it to fail, of a potential application to suspend execution of the judge’s order under section 4 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, Mr Telchadder continued in his mobile home.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Mummery LJ said: ‘[Counsel for Mr Telchadder] objected that the notice could not possibly have been intended by Parliament to have perpetual effect. As there had been compliance for a reasonable time following the 2006 notice, it was necessary, he asserted, to serve another notice before commencing proceedings. I do not agree. Paragraph 4 does not set any end-date for the expiration of a notice. There is no reason why the notice served in this case should not have continuing effect for the whole period of [Mr Telchadder’s] occupation of the mobile home on Plot Number 160. All that the notice was seeking to achieve was future compliance with continuing obligations in circumstances where [a breach] had already occurred.’

Judges:

Mummery, Black LJJ, Dame Janet Smith

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 635

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mobile Homes Act 1983, Caravan Sites Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At CA – Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd SC 5-Nov-2014
Old breaches did not support possession order
The mobile home tenant was said to have paraded on the caravan park in combat style clothing, and disguising his face, causing fear among the other tenants. He now appealed against confirmation of the order for possession. He said that there had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457757

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 that he did not have protection under the 1977 Act.
Held: Protection under the 1954 Act continued only whilst the premises were being used for business purposes, and once that use ended the protection ended also. The 1977 Act required that to have protection, the premises had to be when originally let, let as a dwelling, and it excluded from protection any premises to which the 1954 Act applied. At the time when it was let, the lease was protected under the 1954 Act which precluded at that time protection under the 1977 Act, and that latter protection could not be acquired later.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Thomas LJ, Neuberger LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 30, [2007] 1 WLR 1628

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 23(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Epsom Grandstand Association Ltd v Clarke CA 1919
The court considered whether a property, let and used as a public house on the ground floor with a flat above, fell within the ambit of the 1915 Act.
Held: Bankes LJ said that the property ‘was a dwelling house, and nonetheless so because it . .
Cited – Hicks v Snook CA 1928
The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
Cited – Wolfe v Hogan CA 1949
An issue arose as to the purpose of the original letting. The defendant was the sub-tenant of a large divided room on the ground floor of a house in Chelsea which she used for business purposes. She eventually decided to live there as well.
Cited – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
Cited – Cheryl Investments v Saldanha CA 1978
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business.
Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of . .
Cited – Pulleng v Curran CA 1980
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. . .
Cited – Russell v Booker CA 1982
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 . .
Appeal From – 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 . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Levermore v Jobey CA 1956
Danckwerts LJ said: ‘A lease is not intended to be either a mental exercise or an essay in literature: it is a practical document dealing with a practical situation.’ . .
Cited – Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd CA 31-Jul-2001
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. . .
Cited – Webb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet CA 1988
The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the . .
Cited – Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .
Cited – Webb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet CA 1988
The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the . .
Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
Cited – Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – 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: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.248345

City of London v Various Leaseholders of Great Arthur House: CA 25 Mar 2021

The issue on this appeal is the extent to which the lessees of Great Arthur House are liable, under the terms of their leases, to contribute to the cost of carrying out substantial works to the structure and exterior of the building.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 431

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.660053

Selous Street Properties v Oronel: ChD 1984

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.’

Judges:

Hutchinson J

Citations:

[1984] 1 EGLR 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council CA 12-Mar-2010
The tenant had applied to the landlord for consent to assign certain leases. The court had declared the right to exercise break clauses in certain leases as lost. The court had found the right to be lost after the assignment of the leases by the . .
Cited – Topland Portfolio No 1 Ltd v Smiths News Trading Ltd CA 21-Jan-2014
The claimant landlord sought to recover arrears of its tenant’s rent after the tenant’s insolvency from the defendant under the defendant’s guarantee of the rent. The defendant had argued successfully at first instance that the guarantee had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.426720

Mactra Properties Ltd v Morshead Mansions Ltd and Others: ChD 6 Nov 2008

The block of flats was owned by a company in which each tenant owned one share. The claimant company had bought twenty five flats, and now sought to sell them, but the freeholder refused to register share transfers saying that the claimant was in arrears with its service charge payments. The court was asked to say whether the sole director was acting in bad faith. The director had given his evidence as to the reasons for his actions and had not been cross-examined as to them. The claimant alleged personal hostility as between the director and its own alter-ego owner.
Held: The declaration was refused. Brennan QC said: ‘the circumstances in which Mr Crowther refused to permit registration of the shares do not begin to justify a conclusion that he was acting in bad faith and otherwise than in accordance with MML’s established policy. ‘

Judges:

Brennan QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2843 (Ch), [2009] BCC 335, [2009] 1 BCLC 179

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Smith and Fawcett Ltd CA 1942
Directors to act Without Collateral Purpose
The primary duty of a director imposed by the general law is that he should act in what he considers to be the best interests of the company, and not for any collateral purpose. That duty is a subjective one that depends on the directors exercising . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Company

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.374397

Royal Bank of Canada v Secretary of State for Defence: ChD 2003

The parties had disputed the interpretation of a lease.
Held: Though a point of law had been at issue, the dispute should still have been mediated. The ADR pledge given by Government was something to which he ought to attach ‘great weight’: ‘As I have said, however, the most important feature to my mind is the formal pledge given on behalf of the government and its various departments to use ADR in appropriate cases. The government did not abide by that pledge in this case. I am not in a position to form any real view of whether a mediation would or would not have succeeded. It may well have done, but in my judgment a failure to abide by the formal pledge given on the part of government, coupled with the fact that . . justifies a decision that the defendant should not recover any further costs from the claimant.’

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1841 (Ch)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.374393

M and M Savant Ltd v Brown and others: LT 8 Aug 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – consultation requirements – section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in its form pre the amendments made by Common hold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – failure to comply with consultation requirements – landlord not having acted reasonably – no dispensation granted – case heard before a judge sitting as both a Member of the Lands Tribunal and a Circuit Judge sitting in the County Court (the jurisdiction to consider dispensation in this pre-2002 Act case being vested solely in the County Court).

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 26 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.278617

Brightlingsea Haven Ltd and Another v Morris and others: QBD 30 Oct 2008

The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The claimants purported to impose new leases with clauses requiring the site not to be occupied during those months.

Judges:

Jack J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1928 (QB), [2009] 1 EGLR 117, [2009] 2 PandCR 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 3, Caravan Act 1968 13(1), Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Babbage v North Norfolk District Council CA 1990
The court considered the extent of its ability to insert conditions into caravan site agreements under the 1960 Act. The site licence contained two relevant conditions. One required that no caravan should be occupied between November 1 and March 19. . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Carrick District Council CA 6-Apr-1994
The District Council issued an established user certificate for a caravan on the appellants’ lands. The appellants then replaced the caravan with a ‘park home’ for which planning permission was refused and enforcement notices were issued by the . .
Cited – Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment and Arun Admn 27-Feb-1997
The appellant sought to quash the decision to confirm an enforcement notice which required him to remove a log cabin from his land. The issue arose whether the cabin was a caravan in law.
Held: It was not a caravan since it was not assembled . .
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 12-Aug-2011
The council appealed against the inspector’s decision to quash its enforcement notice. The land-owner occupied a wooden structure which he said was a caravan, but the council said was a residence and an unlawful change of use of agricultural land. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Planning

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.277378