Category: Landlord and Tenant

Frozen Value Ltd v Heron Foods Ltd: CA 24 Apr 2012

The tenant claimant appealed against rejection of its claim that the landlord did not intend to occupy the tenanted property, allowing the landlord to reject the claimant’s application for a new lease on the expiry of the existing one.

Judges:

Lloyd, Rimer, Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 473

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24(1) 26(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452897

Duke of Westminster v Guild: CA 1985

The court was asked whether a landlord was obliged to repair a drain serving the demised premises which passed under the landlord’s retained land.
Held: No such obligation could be implied and it did not fall within the scope of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. Slade LJ said: ‘The express covenant for quiet enjoyment and implied covenant against derogation from grant cannot in our opinion be invoked so as to impose on [the plaintiffs] positive obligations to perform acts of repair which they would not otherwise be under any obligation to perform.’ and
‘The subject of the dispute, that is the landlords’ part of the green drain, is property in respect of which the tenant enjoys an easement of drainage governed by the general law of easements. It is well settled that the grant of an easement ordinarily carries with it the grant of such ancillary rights as are reasonably necessary to its exercise or enjoyment: Jones v Pritchard [1908] 1 Ch 630, 638, per Parker J. In our opinion, therefore, it is plain that the tenant would have the right, when reasonably necessary, to enter the landlord’s property for the purpose of repairing that drain and to do the necessary repairs. In contrast, however, it is an equally well settled principle of the law of easements that, apart from any special local custom or express contract, the owner of a servient tenement is not under any obligation to the owner of the dominant tenement to execute any repairs necessary to ensure the enjoyment of the easement by the dominant owner; apart from special local custom or express contract, the law will ordinarily leave the dominant owner to look after himself: see Gale on Easements, 14th ed. (1972), p47 and Holden v White [1982] QB 679,683-684 per Oliver LJ.’

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1985] QB 688

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.442750

Milmo v Carreras: CA 1946

Privity of estate between the assignee and the lessor creates liability in the lessor only in respect of covenants which run with the land.
What was plainly stated and understood by the parties to be an underlease operated as an assignment of the lease as a matter of law, because the duration of the purported underlease equalled or exceeded that of the lease. Whatever the form of the transaction, if a tenant purports to grant a sublease for a term equal to or larger than the term vested in the tenant, it necessarily results in an assignment because the tenant is left without a reversion.
Lord Greene MR said: ‘In accordance with a very old and established rule, where a lessee, by a document in the form of a sub-lease, divests himself of everything that he has got (which he must necessarily do if he is transferring to his so-called sub-lessee an estate as great as, or purporting to be greater than, his own) he from that moment is a stranger to the land, in the sense that the relationship of landlord and tenant, in respect of tenure, cannot any longer exist between him and the so called sub-lessee.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1946] KB 306

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.448475

Chez Gerard Ltd v Greene: CA 1983

Citations:

[1983] EGLR 79

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Cunliffe v Goodman CA 1950
Action for damages for breach of a repairing covenant on the expiry of a lease. The court looked at the intention required of a landlord to show an intended purpose to oppose renewal of a lease. Asquith LJ said: ‘An ‘intention’ to my mind connotes a . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports ChD 24-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to renew its leases of docking facilities from the landlord defendant. The defendant resisted saying it intended to operate its own business, and the claimant now alleged that the defendant was abusing its dominant position to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.430365

Malzy v Eichholz: CA 1916

A landlord is not liable in damages to his lessee under a covenant for quiet enjoyment in respect of a nuisance caused by another of his lessees, even if he knows the lessee is causing the nuisance and takes no steps to prevent it. To be liable for nuisances committed by his tenant, it is not enough for them to be aware of the nuisance and take no steps to prevent it, he must either participate directly in the commission of the nuisance, or must be taken to have authorised it by letting the property.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘It is quite a novel doctrine to me that permission by a lessee to use demised premises for a purpose which may or may not involve or create a nuisance is a wrong act on the part of the landlord, and that the landlord can be rendered liable merely because a person does carry on that business in such a manner as to create a nuisance. It would be different, of course, if it were let for a purpose which necessarily involved a nuisance, but this letting did not necessarily involve a nuisance. That is quite plain from the plaintiff’s own evidence. He says there was no ground for complaint until the Dents came into possession.’

Judges:

Lord Cozens-Hardy MR

Citations:

[1916] 2 KB 308

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.442752

Kendall v Baker: CA 22 Jan 1852

In a lease of land for twenty-one years from the 25th of March, 1848, it was covenanted that the lessee should pay a stipulated sum for the first year,-with proviso that the rent for each subsequent year of the term should be reduced or increased according to ‘the average price of wheat in any one year of the said term,’ such average ‘to be taken and ascertained from the then current year’s averages which were taken in the month of January in every year under and by virtue of the tithe-commutation act, 6 and 7 W. 4, c. 71, s. 56,’-which is the result of the sales ‘during seven years ending on the Thursday next before Christmas Day then next preceding :-Held, that the rent must be computed according to such septennial average so published in each year.

Citations:

[1852] EngR 140, (1852) 11 CB 842, (1852) 138 ER 706

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.295263

Cunningham-Reid v Public Trustee: CA 1944

At common law, upon the death of a joint tenant, the tenancy is vested in the survivor, or jointly in the survivors if there is more than one.
Luxmoore LJ said: ‘In the present case there is no evidence of what the bargain between the plaintiff and Sir Ernest Sanger was, and, in the absence of any evidence which would establish a tenancy in common in equity between them, it seems plain that the joint tenancy which is created in law is also a joint tenancy in equity. Sir Ernest Sanger has died, and the plaintiff has succeeded, not only to the legal interest in this lease, but also to the full beneficial interest. As I have said, had the covenant stood alone and had the legal position only to be considered, and if neither of the parties had any beneficial interest in the lease, there could be no question on a covenant in this form but that whichever of them was called on to fulfill it would be entitled to contribution from the other. The substantial point in this case, however, on which the plaintiff is bound to fail, is that he has acquired, by reason of the death of Sir Ernest Sanger, the full beneficial interest in the lease. In those circumstances, it could hardly be suggested that he, having the full benefit of the lease, could be equitably entitled to call on the executors of his co-covenantor, whose estate has no beneficial interest in it, to pay half the rent. It seems to me that in equity the claim to contribution in these circumstances must, of necessity, fail.’

Judges:

Luxmoore LJ, Lord Greene MR and MacKinnon J

Citations:

[1944] KB 602, [1944] 2 All ER 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Hickin SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimant’s parents were secure joint tenants. After her father left, the mother later died. The respondent served a notice on the father terminating the tenancy since as the survivor and not resident, he was not entitled to continue the tenancy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.464814

Tegerdine v Brooks: CA 1977

The court was asked as to the validity of a section 24 notice. In his notice the landlord had stated that he would not oppose the grant of a new tenancy. The tenant failed to serve a counter-notice but then contended that the section 24 notice was invalid because it omitted some of the notes on the prescribed form. The relevant regulations permitted that notice to be as prescribed or ‘substantially to the same effect’.
Held: The omissions were immaterial because the notes in question were made irrelevant by the landlord’s stated willingness to accept the grant of a new tenancy.

Judges:

Roskill LJ

Citations:

(1977) 36 P and CR 261

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ayannuga v Swindells CA 6-Nov-2012
The tenant appealed against refusal of penalties impose for the non-securing of a tenants deposit. The deposit had been secured, and the court had found that the landlord had substantially complied with the notice requirements by matters in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.471971

Gentle v Faulkner: CA 1900

A declaration of trust of a lease had been executed by the tenant. The landlord complained that this was a breach of the covenant against assignment.
Held: In the absence of any context showing that the covenant is to have an extended meaning, a covenant in a lease against assigning the demised premises covers only a legal assignment.
Romer LJ said: ‘It seems to me to be clear that a covenant in a lease against assigning the demised premises, in the absence of any context showing that the covenant is to have an extended meaning, covers only a legal assignment. The covenant against assignment is, therefore, not broken by anything short of a legal assignment. In my opinion such a covenant is not broken by the lessee executing a declaration of trust of the demised premises.’

Judges:

AL Smith and Romer LJJ

Citations:

[1900] 2 QB 267

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 23-Jan-2009
The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2009
The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.281708

Ivorygrove Ltd v Global Grange Ltd: ChD 18 Jun 2003

The tenant sought a new lease. The landlord resisted saying that it intended to carry out works of a substantail nature which would require it to have possession. The tenant responded that the works were not structural.
Held: The words of the section should be read as they are. There is no explicit requirement for works affecting the structure of the building, but only that they were extensive and incompatible with the tenant’s continued possession. References in the authorities to ‘structure’ were not to be treated as rewriting the Act.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

Times 26-Jun-2003, [2003] EWHC 1409 (Ch), Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] NPC 78, [2003] 1 WLR 2090, [2003] 26 EG 179, [2003] 2 EGLR 87, [2004] 4 All ER 144, [2004] 1 P and CR 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Joel v Swaddle 1957
. .
Cited – Percy E Cadle and Co Ltd v Jackmarch Properties Ltd 1957
In the context of section 30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act ‘premises’ applies only to parts of a built structure which perform some structural function. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.184021

Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd: SC 6 May 2020

The Court was asked whether the landlord of a block of flats is entitled, without breach of covenant, to grant a licence to a lessee to carry out work which, but for the licence, would breach a covenant in the lease of his or her flat, where the leases of the other flats require the landlord to enforce such covenants at the request and cost of any one of the other lessees. Clause 2.6 contained a qualified covenant as to licensing of lesser works, and clause 2.7 an absolute covenant against licensing of more serious works. By clause 3.19, the Landlord covenanted at the request suitably framed of a tenant to enforce the covenants in 2.6 and or 2.7.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The landlord would not put it out of its power to enforce clause 2.7 in the lease of the offending lessee by licensing the activity that would otherwise be a breach of that clause. The clause is an absolute covenant and, under clause 3.19, the complainant lessee is entitled, on provision of security, to require the landlord to enforce it as an absolute covenant. Clause 2.7 was not a clause limiting the application of clause 2.6.
The work that Mrs Winfield wished to carry out would have involved, among other things, cutting into and removing a substantial portion of a load bearing wall at basement level and excluded from the demise of her flat. In my view the parties were right to agree that this work would fall within the scope of clause 2.7 and it seems to me to be entirely appropriate that works of this kind should require the consent of the other lessees, including Dr Duval.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 18, [2020] 2 P and CR DG12, [2020] 4 All ER 537, [2020] 2 WLR 1167, [2020] 2 P andCR 14, [2020] HLR 31, [2020] AC 845, [2020] L and TR 23, UKSC 2018/0211

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts, 2019 10 10 am Video, 2019 10 10 pm Video, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd CA 18-Oct-2018
‘The issue on this appeal is whether the landlord of a block of flats is entitled, without breach of covenant, to grant a licence to a lessee to carry out work which would breach an absolute covenant contained in a lease of her flat, where the . .
Cited – Ogdens Ltd v Nelson KBD 30-Jun-1903
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘It is, I think, clearly established as a general proposition that where two persons have entered into a contract, the performance of which on one or both sides is to extend over a period of time, each contracting party is . .
Cited – Short v Stone 20-Jan-1846
The defendant agreed to marry the claimant within a reasonable time after request. He broke that agreement by marrying somebody else before the request had been made, and in that way put it out of his power to comply with the request, if it were . .
Cited – Caines v Smith 26-Jan-1847
The defendant acted in breach of his promise to marry the claimant by marrying another woman.
Held: It was no answer that the claimant had not asked the defendant to fulfil his promise before issuing proceedings. . .
Cited – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd HL 1940
Where a party enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of an existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he will do nothing of his own motion to put an end to that state of . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Cited – Luxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper HL 1941
The vendor company had instructed agents to sell properties on its behalf and had agreed to pay commission on completion of the sale. The sale was agreed with a prospective purchaser introduced by the agents. Before the sale was completed, the . .
Cited – William Stirling The Younger v Maitland And Boyd 1864
Cockburn CJ stated: ‘I look on the law to be that, if a party enters into an agreement which can only take effect by the continuance of a certain existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he shall do nothing of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.650615

Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another: SC 2 Dec 2015

The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause might be implied in a contract is: ‘that it is necessary for business efficacy or that it is so obvious that it went without saying.’
Lord Neuberger reviewed the authorities in the incorporation of implied terms. The policy of the common law is not to imply such terms lightly, and that is why the principles have been formulated in terms of necessity or business efficacy or ‘it goes without saying.’ and ‘I would add six comments on the summary given by Lord Simon in BP Refinery as extended by Sir Thomas Bingham in Philips and exemplified in The APJ Priti. First, in Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2002] 1 AC 408, 459, Lord Steyn rightly observed that the implication of a term was ‘not critically dependent on proof of an actual intention of the parties’ when negotiating the contract. If one approaches the question by reference to what the parties would have agreed, one is not strictly concerned with the hypothetical answer of the actual parties, but with that of notional reasonable people in the position of the parties at the time at which they were contracting. Secondly, a term should not be implied into a detailed commercial contract merely because it appears fair or merely because one considers that the parties would have agreed it if it had been suggested to them. Those are necessary but not sufficient grounds for including a term. However, and thirdly, it is questionable whether Lord Simon’s first requirement, reasonableness and equitableness, will usually, if ever, add anything: if a term satisfies the other requirements, it is hard to think that it would not be reasonable and equitable. Fourthly, as Lord Hoffmann I think suggested in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1988, para 27, although Lord Simon’s requirements are otherwise cumulative, I would accept that business necessity and obviousness, his second and third requirements, can be alternatives in the sense that only one of them needs to be satisfied, although I suspect that in practice it would be a rare case where only one of those two requirements would be satisfied. Fifthly, if one approaches the issue by reference to the officious bystander, it is ‘vital to formulate the question to be posed by [him] with the utmost care’, to quote from Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts 5th ed (2011), para 6.09. Sixthly, necessity for business efficacy involves a value judgment. It is rightly common ground on this appeal that the test is not one of ‘absolute necessity’, not least because the necessity is judged by reference to business efficacy. It may well be that a more helpful way of putting Lord Simon’s second requirement is, as suggested by Lord Sumption in argument, that a term can only be implied if, without the term, the contract would lack commercial or practical coherence.’
Neither the common law nor statute apportions rent in advance on a time basis.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 72, [2015] 3 WLR 1843, [2015] WLR(D) 501, [2016] AC 742, 163 Con LR 1, UKSC 2014/0158

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ChD – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another ChD 16-May-2013
The lease contains a tenant’s break clause which allows the tenant, subject to its compliance with certain conditions, to terminate the lease on a specified date. Rent is payable by instalments quarterly in advance on the usual quarter days. The . .
At CA – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another CA 14-May-2014
The court considered the operation of a break clause within a lease, and in particular ‘ Can the court imply a term which enables the lessee to get back that part of the advance payment of rent which relates to a period (‘the broken period’) after . .
Cited – Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys SC 19-Dec-2012
The claimant’s employment by the bank had been terminated. The parties disputed the sums due, and the date of the termination of the contract. The court was asked ‘Does a repudiation of a contract of employment by the employer which takes the form . .
Cited – The Moorcock CA 1889
Unless restricted by something else, an employer ought to find work to enable a workman to perform his part of the bargain, namely, to do his work. A term will be implied into a contract only to the extent required to give the contract efficacy: ‘if . .
Cited – Reigate v Union Manufacturing Co (Ramsbottom) Ltd CA 1918
Scrutton LJ said that ‘[a] term can only be implied if it is necessary in the business sense to give efficacy to the contract’. He added that a term would only be implied if ‘it is such a term that it can confidently be said that if at the time the . .
Cited – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd CA 1939
The court warned against the over-ready application of any principle to justify the implication of terms into a contract. McKinnon LJ set out his ‘officious bystander’ test: ‘If I may quote from an essay which I wrote some years ago, I then said: . .
Cited – Trollope and Colls Limited v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board HL 1973
The court was requested to imply a term into a building contract.
Held: The term could not be implied, since at least four alternatives might also be implied.
Lord Pearson said: ‘[T]he court does not make a contract for the parties. The . .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Cited – BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v The Shire of Hastings PC 1977
(Victoria) The Board set out the necessary conditions for a clause to be implied into a contract.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘Their Lordships do not think it necessary to review exhaustively the authorities on the implication of a . .
Cited – Arnold v Britton and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
Absurdity did not defeat a clear clause
A standard lease of plots on a caravan park, contained a provision which appeared to increase the rent by 10% in each year. The tenants argued that such a substantial increase could not have been intended.
Held: The tenants’ appeal failed . .
Cited – Atkins International HA v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The APJ Priti) CA 1987
The APJ Priti was chartered but on the voyage, was struck by a missile, towed to port, and discharged. The ships owners argued for a breach of warranty, saying that the nominated port was unsafe. The arbitrator had found that there was no warranty . .
Cited – Philips Electronique v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd CA 1995
There is a presumption against adding terms to a contract. The presumption is stronger where the contract is in writing and represents an apparently complete bargain between the parties. Sir Thomas Bingham MR set out Lord Simon’s formulation, and . .
Cited – Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys SC 19-Dec-2012
The claimant’s employment by the bank had been terminated. The parties disputed the sums due, and the date of the termination of the contract. The court was asked ‘Does a repudiation of a contract of employment by the employer which takes the form . .
Cited – Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman HL 20-Jul-2000
The directors of the Society had calculated the final bonuses to be allocated to policyholders in a manner which was found to be contrary to the terms of the policy. The language of the article conferring the power to declare such bonuses contained . .
Rephrased – Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another PC 18-Mar-2009
(Belize) A company had been formed to manage telecommunications in Belize. The parties disputed the interpretation of its articles. Shares had been sold, but the company was structured so as to leave a degree of control with the government. It was . .
Cited – William Clun’s Case 1613
If a lease under which the rent is payable in arrear was forfeited or came to an end prematurely for some other reason, the landlord loses the right to recover the rent due on the rent day following that determination . .
Cited – Capron v Capron 1874
By a will made before the 1870 Act, but amended by a codicil after the Act commenced to the use of his wife with remainders over. After her death having inherited the property, the parties disputed the apportionment of the rents.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ellis v Rowbotham CA 1900
The plaintiff had let and the defendant had taken a tenancy of premises at a rent payable quarterly in advance. The tenancy agreement had provided that if rent should be in arrears for 14 days the plaintiff could regain possession by re-entry. A . .
Cited – Hildebrand v Lewis CA 1941
B had granted to L a sublease of premises where the rent was payable quarterly in advance. He fell into arrears with his rent and the landlord served on L a notice under the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 section 6 with the result that L became . .
Cited – Foo Jong Peng and others v Phua Kiah Mai and another 8-Oct-2012
Supreme Court of Singapore – Court of Appeal) The court refused to follow the reasoning in Belize at least in so far as ‘it suggest[ed] that the traditional ‘business efficacy’ and ‘officious bystander’ tests are not central to the implication of . .
Cited – Canas Property Co v K L Television Services CA 1970
The rent under the lease was payable in advance on the usual quarter days and the landlord forfeited the lease by serving a writ ‘for instance on 25 April’.
Held: At common law on the breach of a covenant by a lessee, a lessor is entitled to . .
Cited – William Hill (Football) Limited v Willen Key and Hardware Limited 1964
The tenant surrendered the lease, but the date of surrender fell between two rent days. He sought credit for the rent due for the remainder of that rent period, arguing that there was an implied term enabling him to recover the rent for the broken . .
Cited – Canas Property Co v K L Television Services CA 1970
The rent under the lease was payable in advance on the usual quarter days and the landlord forfeited the lease by serving a writ ‘for instance on 25 April’.
Held: At common law on the breach of a covenant by a lessee, a lessor is entitled to . .
Cited – Capital and City Holdings Ltd v Dean Warburg Ltd CA 1988
There was no right of reimbursement under the 1870 Act of rent paid in advance even where the reddendum also included the words ‘proportionately for any part of a year’. . .
Cited – Re a Company 2007
There was no difference between forfeiture and termination under the break clause for the purpose of considering apportionment or otherwise of rent paid in advance. . .
Cited – Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading and Commerce Inc (‘The Reborn’) CA 10-Jun-2009
The court confirmed that the necessity to give business efficacy to a contract was still required for the implication of a term into a contract. . .
Mentioned – Stena Line Ltd v Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Ltd and Another ChD 27-Jul-2010
. .
Cited – Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc CA 16-Dec-2010
C sought payment of broker fees after assisting in raising funds for a venture capital company. The parties disputed the terms as to when payment was to be made.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The evidence did not allow the inference of the . .
Cited – Stena Line Ltd v Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2011
The court heard a proposed arrangement for the remedying of a deficit in the pension scheme. . .
Cited – Dear and Another v Jackson CA 22-Feb-2013
The parties disputed the effect of agreements between them, and the management of companies in which they were involved. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regency Villas Title Ltd and Others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and Another ChD 7-Dec-2015
Claim by time share owners for easements over neighbouring land. The easements were for various sporting rights and facilities.
Held: The Claimants were entitled to appropriate declaratory relief confirming that they have the rights they claim . .
Cited – Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd and Another v The Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
The appellant challenged the grant of permission to the erection of wind turbines within sight of its golf course.
Held: The appeal failed. The challenge under section 36 was supported neither by the language or structure of the 1989 Act, and . .
Cited – Paymaster (Jamaica) Ltd and Another v Grace Kennedy Remittance Services Ltd PC 11-Dec-2017
(Court of Appeal of Jamaica) The parties disputed the ownership of copyight in certain computer software, and also an allegation of the misuse of confidential information. . .
Cited – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .
Cited – Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v Exotix Partners Llp ChD 9-Sep-2019
The parties had contracted to trade global depository notes issued by the Peruvian government. Each made mistakes as to their true value, thinking them scraps worth a few thousand dollars, whereas their true value was over $8m. On the defendant . .
Cited – Wells v Devani SC 13-Feb-2019
Mr W was selling apartments in a block of flats. Mr D, an estate agent, sought commission. W argued that D had not had signed his terms, and that therefore no contract existed. The court considered whether a contract had come into being when a major . .
Cited – Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd SC 6-May-2020
The Court was asked whether the landlord of a block of flats is entitled, without breach of covenant, to grant a licence to a lessee to carry out work which, but for the licence, would breach a covenant in the lease of his or her flat, where the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.556259

Southall Court v Buy Your Freehold Ltd and others: LT 23 Jul 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – Right to manage- RTM company- whether company complied with section 79(5) of the Act- Service charges – Whether on the proper construction of the leases the landlord could require payment to a sinking fund.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 124 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.278610

Ganton House Investments Ltd v Punch Pub Company (Vpr) Ltd and others: CA 28 Aug 2002

Renewed application for leave to appeal against grant of an order that tenancy of car parking spaces be extended under the 1954 Act when enjoyed with occupation of public house.
Held: The appeal was arguable and should proceed.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1288

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kirkwood v Johnson CA 1979
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.217526

Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council: ChD 14 Dec 2004

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2873 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council CA 9-Nov-2005
The claimant sought a declaration that it occupied land on which it had erected advertising hoardings under a tenancy rather than as licensee.
Held: The draft agreement which had been proposed and acted upon with legal advice contradicted any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.220359

Bell; Wigley and Williams v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc: CA 29 Apr 1997

The landlord had mistakenly thought it owned the premises. The lease was granted and its course, creating a tenancy by estoppel. The tenant sought a new tenancy under the 1954 Act, but then withdrew their application. The landlord now sought interim rent.

Judges:

Waite LJ, Singer J

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1553

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.141949

Walker v Badcock: CA 24 Jun 1997

The tenants on a registered mobile home site appealed a decision that they shoud contribute to the expenses of lopping trees at the edge of the site by including it in the pitch fee. The site owner said that it had been carried out for the benefit of the site and was recoverable under the agreement. The tenant said that this applied only wherethe site owner was doing something over and above the obligations already accepted by him, and provided for in the rent.
Held: The judge had been permitted to allow for the costs incurred.
Staughton LJ said: ‘that clause 7(a) only says that regard shall be had to the matters mentioned at (i), (ii) and (iii). It does not say that the pitch fee will be automatically adjusted in accordance with the Retail Price Index, or in accordance with the amount that the owners have spent. It merely says that regard shall be had to those matters.’

Judges:

Staughton, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[1997] 2 EGLR 163, [1997] EWCA Civ 1949

Statutes:

Mobile Homes Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stroud v Weir Associates CA 1987
The court was asked to set pitch fees on a registered mobile home site. The site owner had sought to rely upon the fact of the order which cut from 15 per cent to 10 per cent the maximum commission chargeable by a site owner on an occupier’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – Howard and others v Kinvena Homes Ltd CA 27-Jun-1999
An owner of a park for mobile homes increased the rent to allow for loss of profits after the home owners began to buy their liquid gas from other sources. He showed that profits from such sales were part of the normal profit structure of such parks . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.142345