Category: Landlord and Tenant

Lodge (T/A JD Lodge) v Wakefield Metropolitan Council: CA 21 Mar 1995

The plaintiff had formerly been a tenant of the defendant under an informal tenancy. No rent had been paid since 1974. He claimed to have acquired the land by adverse possession. He gave evidence at trial that if he had been asked to pay rent at any time before the twelve years were completed, he would have done so.
Held: A tenant in possession was during the subsistence of the tenancy entitled to exclude from the land the world at large, including the landlord. The squatter necessarily had the requisite mental intention of possessing the property for the purpose of adverse possession.

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 41, [1995] 38 EG 136, [1995] EGCS 51, [1995] 2 EGLR 124

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Moses v Lovegrove CA 29-Apr-1952
The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had . .
Cited – Hayward v Chaloner CA 1968
The alleged tenant (the rector of a parish) knew that rent should have been paid but had not paid it. ‘Only one of the previous rectors gave evidence. He was the Rev. Richard Phillips (dates) He knew the rectory cottages and said that the land . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ofulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.259343

Yeandle v Reigate and Banstead Borough Council: CA 1996

Leggatt LJ said: ‘In my judgment, a valid 12 months’ notice in writing to determine the tenancy from year to year, commencing on September 29 1968, may, if given in time, specify either September 28 or 29 in a subsequent year as the date for delivery of possession because the tenancy would be construed as ending on the last moment of the 28th or on the first moment of the 29th.’ However Roch LJ said: ‘A 12 months’ notice will mean a 12 months’ notice to quit and will remain a 12 months’ notice to quit whether it is expressed to end on September 28 – in which case it will take effect at the last moment of September 28 – or whether it is expressed to take effect on September 29, when it would take effect on the first moment of that day.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Roch LJ

Citations:

[1996] 1 EGLR 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.258395

Brillouet v Landless: CA 1996

B occupied a room in a hotel. He sought an injunction to prevent his eviction, arguing first that he was a tenant protected by the Housing Act 1988 and second that he was protected under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. His application was refused.
Held: His appeal was also dismissed. To claim under the 1988 Act he had to show that he had a tenancy. The facilities provided by the hotel prevented the appellant from demonstrating that he had exclusive possession. Further, he had taken advantage of hotel services. He was therefore a hotel guest booking accommodation at a daily rate. He was a mere licensee. As to the 1977 Act, he would be able to claim its protection as such, but in these particular circumstances, and even as a licensee his occupation was not occupation of a dwelling for the purposes of section 3 of the 1977 Act.

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1996] 28 HLR 836

Statutes:

Housing Act 1998, Protection from Eviction Act 1977 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.230376

Max Factor Ltd v Wesleyan Assurance Society: CA 1996

A break clause was mutual but contained a proviso making it clear ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ that the lessor’s right to determine the term ceased if the lessee assigned its interest in the lease prior to the expiration of the tenth year of the term: ‘5.09 If either the Lessor or the Lessee (here meaning Max Factor Limited only) shall be desirous of determining this present Lease at the end of the tenth year of the term hereby granted and of such desire deliver to the other not less than twelve months’ previous notice in writing and in the case of Max Factor Limited pays all rent and six months’ further additional rent at the rate then applicable (such additional rent being payable in full on the expiry of such notice) then and in such case immediately after the expiration of the tenth year of the term this Lease shall cease and be void but without prejudice to any claim by either party against the other in respect of any antecedent breach of any covenant or condition herein contained provided that for the avoidance of doubt in the event of the Lessee (here meaning Max Factor Limited only) assigning the interest in the demised premises prior to the expiration of the tenth year of the term then the Lessor’s right to determine the term contained in this Clause shall forthwith cease.’ The court was asked whether the clause was exercisable by an original lessee following assignment by it of the lease and re-assignment by the assignee back to the original tenant.
Held: The break clause was not exercisable following assignment of the lease, even though it had been re-assigned back to the original tenant. It determined on the assignment. The right to exercise the break clause was mutual, and the proviso to the break clause expressly provided for cesser of the landlord’s rights on assignment by the landlord and was expressed to be ‘for the avoidance of doubt’, and the landlord had a right to refuse re-assignment back to the original tenant, thus rendering any exercise of the break clause nugatory.

Judges:

Auld and Aldous LJJ, Staughton LJ dissenting

Citations:

[1996] 2 EGLR 210, (1996) 74 PandCR 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – BP Oil UK Ltd and others v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc CA 21-Dec-2004
An option was granted to three lessees for the purchase of the reversion. After one ceased to be a lessee, the remaining two purported to exercise the option. The landlord said that only the three could exercise the option together.
Held: The . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.222563

Cornillie v Saha and Bradford and Bingley Building Society: CA 1996

The landlord may not re-enter if he or she has waived the ground for forfeiture. In determining whether a given act amounts to a waiver it is necessary to answer yes to the the following three questions: (1) Does the alleged act of waiver unequivocally recognise the subsistence of the tenancy? (2) Did the landlord have knowledge of the ground for forfeiture at the time of the alleged act of waiver? (3) Was the act of recognition communicated to the tenant?

Citations:

(1996) 72 P and CR 14, [1996] 28 HLR 561

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.188404

Welby and Another v Casswell: CA 14 Apr 1995

A farming tenant drew his income from farming despite living off his overdraft on a small return from farming activities.
Held: The court should adopt a purposive construction. The right to inherit an agricultural tenancy survived if he worked and was dependant on the farm despite the absence of any profit.

Citations:

Gazette 03-May-1995, Times 18-Apr-1995, Independent 14-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 36(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Welby and Another v Casswell QBD 28-Mar-1994
To inherit agricultural tenancy, the tenant applicant must derive all his income from agricultural activities. The term ‘principal source of income’ didn’t include overdraft or outside earnings. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Welby and Another v Casswell QBD 28-Mar-1994
To inherit agricultural tenancy, the tenant applicant must derive all his income from agricultural activities. The term ‘principal source of income’ didn’t include overdraft or outside earnings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.90364

The Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Ubah: CA 21 Mar 1996

The respondent mortgagee had obtained an order for possession against the mortgagor freeholder, referred to in the judgment as ‘the Chief’, who had, prior to the mortgage, granted a tenancy to the appellant.
Held: The landlord’s retention of a right to use the kitchen made the tenancy a restricted tenancy even though no use was possible by the landlord under the contract in that situation.
CS Millett LJ: ‘The appellant’s evidence was that in 1987, that is before the mortgage was granted to the respondents, the appellant arranged for work to be carried out on the flat. The Chief later agreed with him that he would pay andpound;13,873 towards the cost of those repairs and in the words of the appellant ‘the Chief told me to set my rent against what he owed me’. That agreement was effective between the parties, but it did not confirm upon the appellant an interest in land capable of binding successors in title to the Chief whether with or without notice of the arrangements unless the right the right of deduction which was given to the appellant fell within one of the two established rights of deduction which are capable of binding successors in title’. And
‘As against the Chief in my opinion the appellant may well be entitled to deduct the amount which the Chief owes him from payments of rent which are due to the Chief. But the money judgment below is entirely in respect of rent to due the respondents after the date that they had notified the appellant that they had taken possession. The appellant has no right of set-off capable of binding successors in title such as the respondents. It is, of course, settled law that an interest which is not capable of binding successors in title cannot be an over-riding interest within section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Apr-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996, [1996] 73 P and CR at 500

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .
Cited – Lee-Parker v Izzett (1) ChD 1971
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence of set-off at law to a claim for unpaid rent. Justice Goff discussed the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89837

Pennel v Payne and Another: CA 13 Dec 1994

An upwards notice to quit given by the head tenant allows the Head Landlord also to determine the sub-tenancy. This is the case whether or not the subtenancy was granted within the terms of the headlease.

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1994, Ind Summary 23-Jan-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Overruled – Brown v Wilson 1949
A subtenant’s lease is not protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act where the head lease is terminated by the landlord, but if the head tenant determines his own tenancy the sub-tenancy is protected and will be promoted in his stead: ‘the law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.84656

Marath and Another v MacGillivray: CA 5 Feb 1996

A landlord’s notice to the effect that ‘3 month’s rent due’ was a sufficiently precise demand to allow the tenant to know the nature of his default, and the notice was valid. the relevant notice said: ‘Signed: RM If signed by agent, name and address of agent: Acting Agent RM’ with the address. This notice had been served as an exhibit to an affidavit by the agent.
Held: A notice served for the purposes of section 20 of the 1988 Act (notwithstanding that it was not a valid notice for the purposes of section 20 itself, because it was served after rather than before the ‘assured tenancy’ was entered into) provided sufficient notice for the purposes of section 48(1).
Sir Iain Glidewell said: ‘I see the strength in the argument that if it be proved that the landlord, or his solicitors acting on his behalf, had quite deliberately ensured that payment which otherwise would have come from a housing authority was delayed until after the date of the hearing, in order to enable the landlord to prove that more than three months’ rent was in fact unpaid, a court would be slow to base a judgment upon more than three months’ rent being unpaid. Precisely how it would go about reflecting that unwillingness to give judgment when it is required by statute to do so, I have not considered.’

Judges:

Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-1996, [1996] 28 HLR 484

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 8 20, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd CA 10-Aug-1994
The duty placed on a Landlord by the section is to give to the tenant a notice of an address for service for the landlord in writing. Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘what the section requires is that the tenant is told, so that he knows, the landlord’s name . .

Cited by:

Cited – Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh CA 13-May-1999
The claimant landlord had sought to assert that the let was an assured shorthold tenancy. On a rehearing, the tenant said no notice had been served under section 20. The landlord also now asserted non-payment of rent.
Held: A notice which was . .
Cited – Leeds v London Borough of Islington Admn 29-Jan-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83393

Mainwaring v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 1): CA 20 Feb 1996

The claimant sought an order allowing the sale of the freehold of the building where she occupied an apartment. The trustees, when proposing to sell the building to the trustees of the Wellcome Trust, should have served notice under section 5 of the Act on the appellant and other qualifying tenants. The section provides for the service of notices by a landlord who proposes to make a relevant disposal.
Held: The ‘Relevant disposal’ by a Landlord happens on completion, not on exchange of contracts. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘The Act provides that if, in certain closely defined situations, a landlord proposes to dispose of his interest in premises of a certain kind, the tenants living in those premises shall have a priority right to acquire that interest on the same terms as those on which the landlord is willing to dispose of the interest to another. The long title of the 1987 Act describes it as ‘An Act to confer on tenants of flats rights with respect to the acquisiton by them of their landlord’s reversion”
and ‘the choice between the competing contentions . . must be governed by the proper construction of the 1987 Act and not be consideration of how the proper construction may in practice affect either one party or the other.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-1996, [1996] 2 All ER 220

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Mainwaring and Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 2) CA 3-Oct-1996
The tenants had sought to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. One tenant having signed an ‘irrevocable’ agreement to participate, withdrew his involvement in the purchase, and the remaining number of tenants were no longer a sufficient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83336

Crawley Borough Council v Ure: CA 23 Feb 1995

A notice to quit given by one of two joint tenants was binding on the other tenant despite there having been no consultation between them.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1995, [1996] 1 QB 13

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 26-3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sims v Dacorum Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
Husband and wife had been joint tenants of the council. On the breakdown of the marriage, W gave notice to quit. H defended the council’s possession action, saying that it was an infringement of his human rights for him to lose his tenancy and home. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.79602

Duke of Westminster and Others v Birrane: CA 17 Nov 1994

A basement extending under the house next door means that the property with the basement is not a not a dwelling-house for leasehold enfranchisement purposes. The result would create difficulties with flying freeholds. ‘The primary purpose of section 2(2) must have been to exclude from the operation of the Act houses in respect of which the inability of one freehold owner to enforce positive obligations against successors in title of the other would be likely to prejudice the enjoyment of the house or another part of the structure.’ and the test of materiality under section 2 was to be assessed on the basis that ‘if the part of the house which lies above or below a part of the structure not comprised in it is of sufficient substance or significance to make it likely that enfranchisement will prejudice the enjoyment of the house or another part of the structure, whether by reason of the inability of one freehold owner to enforce positive obligations against successors in title of the other or otherwise, then it is a material part of the house within section 2(2).’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-1995, Times 17-Nov-1994, Ind Summary 19-Dec-1994, [1995] QB 262

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(1) 2(1) 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.80163

Ward-Lee v Lineham: CA 1 Mar 1993

Where the tenant had issued an application for a tenancy, but had failed to serve the proceedings within the two months time limit and no application to extend the time for service had been made within four months, the court still had discretion to extend the time to allow the service, and treat the delay as an irregularity only.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 II

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.90303

United Dominions Trust Ltd v Shellpoint Trustees: CA 23 Mar 1993

The lessee of a flat charged it to secure the purchase price. He fell into arrears in the payment of service charges which were recoverable as rent. The landlord obtained judgment for the arrears and for costs. The tenant paid the arrears but not the costs, and the landlord acted to take possession for non-payment. The lender applied for relief out of time. It had known of the proceedings since their inception.
Held: The term ‘lessee’ in section 138 of the Act, must be read to include a mortgagee, and having failed to act within the time limits set down, the mortgagee was barred from all relief.
cw Forfeiture relief lease mortgaged lessor repossessing flat – mortgagee failing to apply in time for relief – whether ‘lessee’ includes ‘mortgagee’.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Jun-1993, Independent 14-Apr-1993, Times 23-Mar-1993, [1993] 4 All ER 310 CA

Statutes:

County Courts Act 1984 138(2) 140

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Doe d Wyatt v Byron 1845
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.90071

Sheffield City Council v Jepson: CA 1 Mar 1993

The tenant was subject to an agreement not to keep a dog in her flat. The judge agreed that the term was appropriate, and that the breach of the term was both open persistent and determined. Under those circumstances it was not reasonable for him to refuse an order for possession.

Citations:

Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993, (1993) 25 HLR 299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Joseph v Nettleton Road Housing Co-Operative Ltd CA 16-Mar-2010
The respondent was a mutual housing co-operative, and the claimant its tenant. The tenant kept a dog in the premises without the consent of the other tenants in breach of the terms of the lease. A notice to quit was served on him. His tenancy was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89206

System Floors Ltd v Ruralpride Ltd and Another: CA 31 Oct 1994

A break clause was contained in an agreement not in the lease but in a side letter which made the benefit of the break clause personal to the original lessee but said nothing express as to whether the burden of the break clause passed to an assignee of the reversion.
Held: The burden of a lease side letter went with the assignment of the Landlord’s interest. Referring to P and A Swift, Morritt LJ said about what is required of a covenant in order for it to touch and concern the land: ‘Any dictum of Lord Oliver of Aylmerton commands the greatest respect even when, as here, he does not purport to lay down an exhaustive test and, indeed, recognizes the dangers of attempting to do so. Nevertheless, I do not think that the burden of a covenant will fail to satisfy the conditions of section 142 merely because the benefit of it is personal to the present tenant.’

Judges:

Morritt LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 EGLR 48

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – P and A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group Plc HL 7-Jul-1988
The House was asked as to whether a covenant touched and concerned the land.
Held: Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘Formulations of definitive tests are always dangerous, but it seems to me that, without claiming to expound an exhaustive guide, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Harbour Estates Limited v HSBC Bank Plc ChD 15-Jul-2004
The lease contained a break clause. The parties disputed whether the benefit of the clause was personal to the orginal lessee, or whether it touched and concerned the land, and therefore the benefit of it passed with the land.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89669

Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua: CA 31 Mar 1994

Temporary housing may be treated as being settled, so an abandonment of it may be intentional homelessness.
The applicant had been accepted by Tower Hamlets as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and given temporary accommodation. She refused a permanent place offered to her and was evicted. She applied to Brent who concluded that her refusal of accommodation made her intentionally homeless. Brent now appealed a finding against them.
Held: It was relevant when looking at the provision of public sector housing to the homeless, that an authority had previously accepted her as unintentionally homeless. It could not be assumed she would reject any offer made. Nevertheless Brent had to make its own assessment. It had asked itself the correct questions, not only whether she had acted reasonably in failing to accept an offer, but also whether the temporary accommodation was suitable. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Dillon, Leggatt, Henry LJJ

Citations:

Independent 31-Mar-1994, Times 26-Apr-1994

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council, Ex Parte Awua QBD 1-Jul-1993
A person refusing an offer of permanent accommodation was intentionally homeless. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86190

Mountain v Hastings: CA 16 Apr 1993

The tenant disputed the effect of a notice to quit. Paragraph 3 of the form read: ‘The landlord intends to seek possession on grounds . . in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, which reads: Give the full text of each ground which is being relied on. (Continue on a separate sheet if necessary).’ By regulation 2 of the 1988 Regulations: ‘any reference to a numbered form is a reference to the form bearing that number in the Schedule to these regulations or to a form substantially to the same effect’.’
Held: A notice to quit given in respect of an assured tenancy need not follow the apparent wording of the Act precisely.
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘The regulation, however, expressly permits the notice to be effective in the prescribed form if it is ‘substantially to the same effect’, which I take to mean to be showing no difference in substance having regard to the legislative purpose of the provisions as a whole. I, therefore, am not persuaded that there is a statutory requirement that the ground be set out verbatim from the schedule. I am troubled by the risk that if the tenant is faced with the seven words which effectively set out the substance of a ground but in markedly different words, the tenant may, if he has access to the words in schedule 2, be puzzled and troubled by the difference. There is something to be said in favour in the use of the words in which the ground was enacted by Parliament. I do not decide this point, however, because the case can be, and I think should be, decided on the ground that the plaintiff’s notice was not ‘substantially to the same effect’ as that required by the Act and regulations.’
As to the extended powers given to courts under section 9, the court had the ‘impression’ that it ‘is not dealing with the ordinary power of adjournment which the court has to control and direct the conduct of a trial: it is directed to an extended discretion as there described.’ The tenant should know from the notice what he or she should do ‘which will best protect her against the loss of her home.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

Independent 16-Apr-1993, (1993) 25 HLR 427

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 8 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Mentioned – Knowsley Housing Trust v Revell; Helena Housing Ltd v Curtis CA 9-Apr-2003
The local authority landlord commenced proceedings for possession, but then transferred the properties to a registered social landlord. The tenants objected that the new landlords could not continue the proceedings.
Held: The transfer moved . .
Cited – Garrett v Halton Borough Council CA 18-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Masih, Regina (on The Application of) v Yousaf CA 6-Feb-2014
Appeal against refusal to set aside possession order made under assured shorthold tenancy. No rent was paid on three rent days, but then the Housing benefit begand clearing arrears in part.
Held: It is settled law that the notice requiring . .
Cited – London Borough of Hackney v Findlay CA 20-Jan-2011
An application had been made to set aside a possession order obtained by a social landlord and determined by a district judge who applied CPR3.1 (7), when setting the possession order aside. By the time the landlord’s appeal against that decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83883

Nicholls v Kinsey: CA 3 Feb 1994

The parties agreed a tenancy for 12 months, and thereafter to continue from year to year determinable by the landlord on twelve months’ notice. An order had been obtained from the court to exclude the tenancy from protection under the 1954 Act.
Held: The agreement and order taking the tenancy out of Part II protection was void because it was not a term of years certain. The term was a protected term.

Citations:

Ind Summary 07-Feb-1994, Times 03-Feb-1994, [1994] QB 600, (1994) 69 P and CR 438

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District v Palacegate Properties Ltd CA 9-Feb-2000
A prospective landlord and tenant applied to have the proposed tenancy excluded from security of tenure. The draft appended to the application had blanks for the dates, and a break clause.
Held: The intention was to demonstrate the parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84293

Mason v Nwokorie: CA 19 Oct 1993

General and aggravated damages at common law are to be set off, against damages awarded under Housing Act 1988 s2. The general damages were attributable to the loss of the right to occupy the premises, and therefore the common law damages award should be set off against the statutory award for the same loss.

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

Gazette 17-Nov-1993, Times 19-Oct-1993, (1994) 26 HLR 60

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kaur v Gill CA 15-Jun-1995
A landlord could be liable for for orders for damages both for a common law breach of quiet enjoyment under the lease and for the loss of occupation under the 1988 Act. The case of Mason was distinguished because on the basis that the common law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83464

Havenridge Ltd v Boston Dyers Ltd: CA 1 Apr 1994

The lease provided that the lessee should pay ‘by way of further and additional rent all yearly or other sums as the Lessor shall from time to time properly expend or pay to any insurance company in respect of or for insuring and keeping insured the demised premises’. The tenant contended that the landlord might have found cheaper insurance, and asked the court whether there had to be implied into the lease a term that the insurance premiums would be fair and reasonable.
Held: A landlord need not seek lowest insurance premiums, but need only act in normal course of business.
Evans LJ said that the landlord was entitled to an assumption that he had ‘paid the sums claimed to an insurer of repute and otherwise acted in accordance with the contract.’

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Times 01-Apr-1994, (1994) 49 EG 111

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd ChD 23-Nov-2011
The defendant tenant said that it had exercised a break clause in the lease held of the claimant. The claimant said the break notice was ineffective because the defendant was in breach of the lease, not having paid an iinsurance service charge, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81281

Hounslow London Borough Council v Pilling: CA 21 Apr 1993

One joint tenant relied upon the 1977 Act to try to protect her against eviction.
Held: One joint tenant may not unilaterally end a tenancy without full notice. However Nourse LJ in allowing the tenant’s appeal found ‘it abundantly clear that a joint tenant cannot unilaterally determine the tenancy by giving an inappropriate notice, for example one which does not give the period of notice required at common law or by the terms of the tenancy’, and said: ‘it is obvious that such an agreement cannot deprive the other joint tenant of the protection to which he is entitled under the Act.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1242

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81488