Category: Landlord and Tenant

Alexander Grant of Edinburgh v Earl of Morton: HL 8 Jun 1789

Lease – Removing. – A lease, with a clause generally against subsetting, permitted the tenant to subset part of the subject, which was done accordingly. No rent was ever paid by the subtenant to the landlord, nor to the tenant from whom he had his sublease, while there was a clause in the lease that the tenant should be liable in payment of the rents of the whole subject. The tenant failed, and an action of ejection being raised and decree passed, Held that the decree of removing was a good decree, although only raised against the principal tenant, and clearly entitled the landlord to eject the subtenant from the part held by him.

Citations:

[1789] UKHL 3 – Paton – 145

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580997

Andrew Stration, A Pauper v Thomas Graham of Balgowan, Esq: HL 28 Mar 1789

Lease – Deviation from Mode of Cropping – Penalty. – A tack stipulated that the tenant was at liberty to deviate from the mode of cropping and management laid down in the tack upon his paying andpound;2. per acre more of additional rent to the landlord. He departed from the mode of cropping. Held, in the Court of Session, that he was liable to pay the andpound;2. of additional rent. Reversed in the House of Lords, and case remitted to ascertain and determine specially what was the number of acres the tenant became bound to cultivate in the manner specified in the tack, and what was the number of acres cultivated contrary to the conditions thereof.

Citations:

[1789] UKHL 3 – Paton – 119

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580994

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 assignment of his mobile home that reduction in his commission entitlement as a relevant factor on the pitch fee review. The court asked whether evidence of the pitch fees or rents charged at other sites was a relevant factor.
Held: Evidence of pitch fees at other caravan sites did not fall within the review clause, because the phrase ‘applicable to the operation of the park’ qualified the term ‘any other relevant factor’. Thus the court favoured a fairly narrow interpretation of sub-paragraph (iii) in that case. The phrase ‘applicable to the operation of the park’ applied equally to ‘any other relevant factors’ as to ‘the effect of legislation’.
Glidewell LJ said, however, that ‘Grammatically there is no break, no comma or any other indication to show that the phrase ‘applicable to the operation of the park’ is intended only to include the effect of legislation. The words make sense read as a whole, and for myself I would so interpret them.’ and ‘In my view the Court cannot merely decide whether relevant factors have been taken into account but it can also decide the figures themselves: in other words, in this respect the Court is acting as an arbitrator would do’ The judge had been right to hold that the loss of commission was a relevant factor applicable to the operation of the site. Evidence as to the rent charged on a new letting of a pitch on the same site ‘could be considered to be relevant’.

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, O’Connor LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 EGLR 190, (1987) 19 HLR 151

Statutes:

Mobile Homes Act 1983, Mobile Homes (Commissions) Order 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Howard and others v Kinvena Homes Limited CA 19-Mar-1999
Application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
Cited – Warfield Park Homes Ltd v Warfield Park Residents Association CA 27-Mar-2006
Under the Act ‘the Recorder is given a wide discretion by the agreement. The width and unstructured nature of the discretion may seem surprising in relation to an issue as important to residents, and as potentially contentious, as that of pitch . .
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 . .
Cited – Du Plessis v Fontgary Leisure Parks Ltd CA 2-Apr-2012
The claimant, who owned a holiday mobile home on the respondent’s site challenged the raising of site fees, saying that the contract was unfair. Previously all site fees were equal within the site, but the respondent had introduced a scheme which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.263955

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 behind the cottages was used by the occupants, including the land in dispute. He added that the land was sadly neglected and an old couple lived there. He never paid any rent for it. Mr and Mrs Hayward were prominent supporters of the church. He said that he would not expect them to ask him for the 10s. per annum rent.’
Held: A corporation sole may acquire land by adverse possession. Russell LJ said ‘Nor do I doubt the applicability of section 9 (2) to the present case,’ and
‘just because the freeholders were content that the rector should not pay his rent and did not bother to ask for it for all those years. In Moses v Lovegrove in this court it was assumed on all hands that when section 9 apparently operates, adverse possession starts: see especially Lord Evershed, and Romer LJ. The principle clearly accepted was that once the period covered by the last payment of rent expired, the tenant ceased to be regarded by the Limitation Acts as the tenant. This case was not cited to the county court judge. A similar assumption was made in Nicholson v England, under the then existing principles which section 10 (1) was designed to embody. Textbooks to the same effect include Cheshire’s Modern Law of Real property, 9th ed. (1962), pp. 797, 798: Megarry and Wade’s Textbook of the Law of Real Property, 3rd ed. (1966), p. 1010: and Preston and Newsom on Limitation of Actions, 3rd ed. (1953), p.89. I am not aware that the contrary view has been anywhere expressed.’

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1968] 1 QB 107

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Barton v The Church Commissioners for England ChD 15-Dec-2008
The commissioners claimed a right by prescription to all fish to be taken in a stretch of the River Wye. The claimant was to moor a barge on the river.
Held: The court explained the nature and legal status of fisheries in the law going back to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.264078

Abrahams v Wilson: CA 1971

The tenant had allowed his premises to be used for the supply of Class B drugs over many months. Possession was sought under the provision of the Rent Act 1968.
Held: His appeal against a possession order succeeded.
Widgery LJ said: ‘Applying Scrutton LJ’s test, the position in regard to the finding of dangerous drugs on the demised premises I think is simply this: If the drugs are on the demised premises merely because the defendant is there and has them in his or her immediate custody, such as a pocket or a handbag, then I would say without hesitation that that does not involve a ‘using’ of the premises in connection with the offence. On the other hand, if the premises are employed as a storage place or hiding place for dangerous drugs, a conviction for possession of such drugs, when the conviction is illuminated by further evidence to show the manner in which the drugs themselves were located, would I think be sufficient to satisfy the section and come within Case 2.’

Judges:

Widgery LJ

Citations:

[1971] 2 QB 88

Statutes:

Rent Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Schneiders and Sons Ltd v Abrahams 1925
The landlord claimed possession of a dwelling house let on a weekly tenancy, saying the tenant had been convicted of using the premises for an unlawful purpose. The tenant had been convicted of handling stolen goods by receiving them at the . .

Cited by:

Cited – PB Investments Ltd v McInnes CA 19-Jun-2007
The defendant was a Rent Act tenant. She was the last remaining tenant in a block of twenty flats which the landlord wished to redevelop. She said that the alternative accommodation offered was unsuitable. She had not co-operated with the claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.263957

Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe v McOscar: CA 1924

Tenants of new houses in 1925 agreed in their 99 year leases to yield up the premises having well and sufficiently repaired the premises with all manner of reparations.
Held: Atkin LJ said that repair ‘connotes the idea of making good damage so as to leave the subject so far as possible as though it had not been damaged’.

Judges:

Atkin LJ

Citations:

[1924] 1 KB 716

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.259871

Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others: ChD 29 Nov 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2808 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others CA 11-Mar-2008
Applications between consortium members as to management of apartment block.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘ . . an appellate court should not interfere with case management decisions by a judge who has applied the correct principles and who has . .
See Also – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others ChD 7-May-2008
Further case management in substantial case after additional pleadings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.261613

Moss v Brown: CA 1946

The parties to the disputed arrangements were friends at the time when the letting arrangement was entered into. The putative landlord said there was no intention by the parties to create the relationship of landlord and tenant, the issue being whether the persons in exclusive occupation of residential property were tenants or licensees.
Held: (majority) There was evidence to support the finding of the county court judge that the occupation of the flat in question was under a licence.

Judges:

Asquith LJ, Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1946] 2 All ER 557

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Vesely v Levy and others CA 27-Apr-2007
The tenant appealed against a finding that her tenancy was a statutory shorthold tenancy following termination of an assured shorthold tenancy, or an assured tenancy. She moved in as a carer for the tenant of the trustee defendants. That arrangement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.251555

Montague v Browning: CA 1954

Landlords had let the property to their caretaker of the whole premises. andpound;40 was to be deducted from the agreed rental value of the house (andpound;66), and he was to pay andpound;26pa in rent. The parties agreed that the letting was governed by the Rent Restriction Acts. Later his wage was increased to andpound;66.00 leaving no rent payable.
Held: The tenant retained the advantage of having his tenancy protected under the Acts. The alteration created no new tenancy or discontinuance of the existing tenancy because no rent payment was now to be paid. Rent can be validly paid and taken in kind, taking, for example, the form of the supply of goods or services, as long as the parties have agreed a quantification of the value of kind in terms of money.
Denning LJ said that where rent was payable in kind, eg in goods or services, the value of which has by agreement been quantified in terms of mone, the sum so quantified is the rent of the house within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Acts, and if it exceeds two thirds of the rateable value, the house is within the Acts: ‘There is no reason to doubt that the consideration supplied was anything other than a proper one as between the parties and in the circumstances of this application I am unable to see why I should reject the consideration as not being the best reasonably obtainable.’

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1954] 1 WLR 1039, [1954] 2 All ER 601, (1954) 98 Sol Jo 492

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Vesely v Levy and others CA 27-Apr-2007
The tenant appealed against a finding that her tenancy was a statutory shorthold tenancy following termination of an assured shorthold tenancy, or an assured tenancy. She moved in as a carer for the tenant of the trustee defendants. That arrangement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.251557

Green v Rheinberg: CA 1911

Judges:

Vaughan Williams LJ, Farwell and Kennedy LJJ

Citations:

(1911) 104 LT 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Adopted – Barnhart v Greenshields PC 5-Dec-1853
Pemberton Leigh said: ‘With respect to the effect of possession merely, we take the law to be, that if there be a tenant in possession of land, a purchaser is bound by all the equities which the tenant could enforce against the vendor, and that 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

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.242647

Family Association v Jones: CA 1990

The association as licensee of a local authority granted what was described as a licence to the defendant to occupy premises on a temporary basis. They sought possession.
Held: A tenancy had been granted. As to the argument that there were sepcial circumstances: ‘The argument which we have heard suggests to me that, whatever their wishes or intentions, it may at least be difficult for bodies charged with responsibilities for the housing of the homeless to enter into any arrangement pursuant to section 65(2) of the Housing Act 1985 under which the person housed is to enjoy exclusive occupation of premises, however temporarily, without conferring on that person security of tenure by virtue of the Act . . The result must be substantially to reduce the choice of methods available to bodies such as the housing association for dealing with their always limited supplies of housing stock. I am not sure that this result will necessarily inure to the benefit of the class of homeless persons in this country viewed as a whole. These are the reasons for the misgivings expressed at the start of this judgment.’

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 779

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust HL 24-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to oblige the respondent to repair his flat under the 1988 Act. The respondent replied that the arrangement was a licence only, and not protected under the Act.
Held: The housing association had a temporary licence to . .
Cited – Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA 20-Jul-2004
The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.199978

Piper v Muggleton: CA 1956

For proceedings applying for a new tenancy under the Act, it is necessary that at every stage of those proceedings the person joined as ‘the landlord’ should in fact answer that description according to the statutory definition, and that if there is a change of interest by which one person ceases to be, and another becomes the landlord, then that other person becomes the ‘landlord’ for the purposes of all further steps.

Judges:

Jenkins LJ

Citations:

[1956] 2 QB 569

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Parsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.200222

Evans Construction Co Ltd v Charrington and Co Ltd: CA 1983

The tenant sought a new lease and served a notice. The notice named the former landlord not the current landlord.
Held: Order 20 could be used to correct the name where the error was a mere mistaken description of the correct party, but not a mistake as to the actual identity of the party. No injustice would be created here by requiring the correct landlord to make good his reply.
Donaldson LJ said: ‘In applying Ord. 20, r. 5 (3) it is, in my judgment, important to bear in mind that there is a real distinction between suing A in the mistaken belief that A is the party who is responsible for the matters complained of and seeking to sue B, but mistakenly describing or naming him as A and thereby ending up suing A instead of B. The rule is designed to correct the latter and not the former category of mistake. Which category is involved in making any particular case depends upon the intentions of the person making the mistake and they have to be determined on the evidence in light of al the surrounding circumstances. In the instant case I have not the slightest difficulty in accepting Mr. Greenwood’s assertion that he intended to sue the relevant landlord under the Act. After all, he was responding on behalf of his lessee client to a notice to quit given on behalf of the landlord and it would have been surprising, to say the least, if he had thought that it was appropriate to respond by claiming a new lease from the managing agent or other stranger to the landlord and tenant relationship. Accordingly I would conclude that he made a genuine mistake of a character to which Ord. 20, r. 5 (3) can apply.’

Judges:

Donaldson LJ

Citations:

[1983] QB 810, [1983] 2 WLR 117

Statutes:

RSC Order 20 r5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Liff v Peasley CA 1980
The court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. . .
Cited – Baxendale v Davstone (Holdings) Ltd CA 1982
. .

Cited by:

Applied – Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong . .
Cited – Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182315

Goldsworthy v Brickell: CA 1987

The plaintiff had granted a tenancy of his substantial farm to the first defendant, and made him a partner. The first defendant later bought out the plaintiff who was in turn later reconciled with his only son who had previously had some considerable involvement with the farm. The plaintiff gave a general power to the son who now sought to set aside the transactions as having been obtained by undue influence.
Held: A presumption of undue influence could be raised where the gift was so large or improvident that it could not be accounted for from mere friendship. Equity has refused to put limits on what is to be held to be a fiduciary relationship and to which the presumption of undue influence can apply. There has to exist a degree of trust and confidence such that: (Nourse LJ) ‘The party in whom it is reposed, either because he is or has become an adviser of the other or because he has become entrusted with the management of his affairs or every day needs or for some other reason, is in a position to influence him into effecting the transaction of which complaint is later made.’ and acquiescence in its proper sense involves ‘a standing by so as to induce the other party to believe that the wrong is assented to.’
Parker LJ said: ‘Upon whatever precise basis it is sought to uphold a transaction which was originally obtained by undue influence it is an essential ingredient that it would be inequitable to allow the influenced party to set aside the transaction.’
Nourse LJ also said: ‘Undue influence is of two kinds: (1) express or, as it is nowadays more usually known, actual undue influence, and (2) that which in certain circumstances is presumed from a confidential relationship; by which in this context is meant a relationship wherein one party has ceded such a degree of trust and confidence as to require the other, on grounds of public policy, to show that it has not been betrayed or abused. In cases where there is no confidential relationship actual undue influence must be proved. In cases where there is such a relationship it is sometimes alleged, but need not be proved and may never have occurred. Occasionally, even where there is no direct evidence of influence, it is found that there is both a confidential relationship and actual undue influence . . ‘ and ‘ . . Because they have occasioned little or no debate on this appeal, three further general observations may be briefly made. First, it is not every relationship of trust and confidence to which the presumption applies. No generalisation is possible beyond the definition already attempted. Secondly, with relationships to which it does apply the presumption is not perfected and remains inoperative until the party who has ceded the trust and confidence makes a gift so large, or enters into a transaction so improvident, as not to be reasonably accounted for on the ground of friendship, relationship, charity or other ordinary motives on which ordinary men act. Although influence might have been presumed beforehand, it is only then that it is presumed to have been undue. Thirdly, in a case where the presumption has come into operation the gift or transaction will be set aside, unless it is proved to have been the spontaneous act of the donor or grantor acting in circumstances which enable him to exercise an independent will and which justify the court in holding that the gift or transaction was the result of a free exercise of his will.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Parker LJ

Citations:

[1987] Ch 378, [1987] 2 WLR 133

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .
Cited – In re Craig, Decd 1971
Undue influence was found to have been exercised by a secretary companion over her elderly employer. . .

Cited by:

Cited – X v Y, Z sub nom In re E (Enduring power of attorney) ChD 18-Feb-2000
The application was an appeal against an order registering an enduring power of attorney. The appeal from Master Lush was by way of rehearing. The donor had executed two powers. The second was invalid, and the donees of the first power sought to . .
Cited – Billington (By Billington Her Next Friend) Billington, Warburton v Blackshaw CA 16-Dec-1997
The court had set aside a conveyance at an undervalue by a mother to one of her children. There was evidence to doubt her capacity at the time.
Held: There was evidence of senile dementia, and the presumption applied. The judge had dealt . .
Cited – De Wind v Wedge ChD 19-Mar-2008
Brother and sister contested the devolution of their mother’s house. The sister had fallen into debt and been given much financial assistance by other members of the family. The brother said that to rebalance that, the mother had given the house to . .
Cited – Brown v Stephenson ChD 23-Aug-2013
The claimant sought to have set aside transfers and declarations of trust made by her in the defendant’s favour, saying that they had been given under his undue influence taking advantage of her dyslexia, and by bullying.
Held: The claims of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Undue Influence, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182897

Howkins v Jardine: CA 1951

There was a tenancy from year to year of 7 acres which had on them three cottages, which the tenant in fact sub-let to persons not engaged in agriculture. The tenancy itself contained provisions usual in agricultural tenancies, and the tenant used the land for agriculture. The judge held that the protection afforded to the tenant by the Act in invalidating a notice to quit was limited to land used for agriculture and did not extend to the cottages.
Held: Either the whole of the property demised was subject to the protection of the Act or no part. It took as the test of whether or not the Act applied, whether or not the tenancy was in substance an agricultural tenancy

Judges:

Somervell LJ, Jenkins LJ, Hodson J

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 614

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McGowan and Gibbons v Jewell CA 28-Feb-2002
The tenant took farm premises subject to a lease allowing its use for farming purposes only. It prevented its use as a market garden, which would have allowed compensation to be claimed on its termination. He had come to operate several activities . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183198

Harrow London Borough Council v Tonge: CA 2 Dec 1992

An already established right to buy a council property was enforceable even after the death of the tenant.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Dec-1992, (1992) 25 HLR 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.81270

Morgan and Son Ltd v S Martin Johnson and Co Ltd: CA 1949

Cohen LJ considered the appropriateness of a claim for a set-off: ‘Before the Judicature Act, such claims were very often enforced by injunction, but it is plain from section 41 that an injunction would not be the appropriate way of giving effect to a set-off now and that effect should be given to it, under Section 38, as an equitable defence if so pleaded.’

Judges:

Cohen LJ

Citations:

[1949] 1 KB 107, [1948] 2 All ER 196, 64 TLR 381

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.247751

Bridgers and Hamptons Residential v Stanford: CA 1991

The court considered a notice which did not comply with section 25 in several respects. One defect was that it did not comply with 25(5) since it only required the tenants to notify the landlord if they were not willing to give up possession: it required the tenants to give a negative counter notice but not a positive counter notice if they were willing to give up possession.
Held: The notice was valid. The court applied a purposive approach to the construction of the 1954 Act. ‘the only purpose of the positive counter notice is to introduce certainty into the transaction. By contrast, the negative counter notice serves another obvious purpose, since it links in directly with section 29(2) of the Act. If that is right, as I believe it to be, I ask myself next, what was the object of introducing certainty into the transaction in the case of a positive counter notice? Was it for the benefit of the landlord or the tenant or both? The answer to that question must surely be that it was for the benefit of the landlord alone.’ Accordingly the landlord could waive the benefit of the notice.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ, Nourse and Ralph Gibson LJJ

Citations:

(1991) 63 P and CR 18

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re 14 Grafton Street London W1 ChD 1971
The landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant served a notice to say that he did want a new tenancy, but the law then changed and he purported to withdraw his notice, and gave up possession claiming compensation for improvements. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook CA 2-Feb-2004
Tenant’s First Notice to terminate, stood
The landlord served a notice to terminate the business lease. The tenant first served a notice to say that it would not seek a new lease, but then, and still within the time limit, it served a second counter-notice seeking a new tenancy. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.193763

Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga: CA 27 Jan 2021

Whether a landlord can terminate a flexible tenancy agreement for a fixed term of five years prior to the expiry of the fixed term if no express provision is made in the tenancy agreement for re-entry or forfeiture

Judges:

King, Asplin, Arnold LJ j

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 77, [2021] 2 WLR 1069, [2021] QB 962, [2021] WLRD 63

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kalonga, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon Admn 4-Aug-2021
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga SC 9-Mar-2022
The tenant had a five year flexible tenancy. The landlord sought to terminate the tenancy for antisocial behaviour. She responded that the agreement included no express provision for re-entry or forfeiture. The Council landlord now appealed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.657383

Scholl Manufacturing Co Ltd v Clifton (Slim-Line) Ltd: CA 1967

The question was whether a landlord could exercise a right to break a lease by serving a notice under section 25 of the Act, which provides for termination of a tenancy by the landlord.
Held: If a notice is served on an occupying tenant in conformity with the lease, but not in conformity with the Act, its effect is to terminate the contract but not the tenancy.
The fact that the statutory definition of ‘notice to quit’ includes a notice to terminate a tenancy for a term of years certain means that a break notice is a ‘notice to quit’ as defined.
Harman LJ said: ‘the question is whether, having regard to section 25 of the Act, the landlords may determine a lease having a break clause such as the present one under that section provided only that the termination date is not earlier than the date on which the break clause could operate. The judge held that the landlords could do this without first going through the formality of serving a notice to bring the break clause into operation. In my opinion the judge was right and, in fact, I think that section 25 so provides in express terms.’
Diplock LJ: ‘As regards a tenancy which would, apart from the Act, come to an end by notice to quit given by the landlord in accordance with the terms of the lease or tenancy agreement, the provision substituted by the Act is that such tenancies may be terminated by the landlord by giving notice to quit in the prescribed form. The statutory provisions to which I have referred are not in addition to but in substitution for those terms contained in the lease or tenancy agreement which relate to tenancies coming to an end by effluxion of time or by notice to quit given by the landlord to the tenant.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ, Harman LJ

Citations:

[1967] Ch 41

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd CA 30-Apr-2002
The tenant had a lease of business premises. The premises were damaged in a terrorist attack, and the landlord served a notice terminating the lease. The lease gave the right to the landlord to determine the lease if the property was incapable of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182292

Quennell v Maltby: CA 15 Nov 1978

A house was mortgaged to a bank. The house was then let to tenants at an annual rate of pounds 1,000. The tenants were protected as against the mortgagor by the Rent Acts. The tenancy was not binding on the bank. The mortgagor’s wife took a transfer of the mortgage and sued for possession. The purpose of obtaining possession was not to enable the wife to sell in her capacity as transferee of the mortgage, but to enable her husband, the mortgagor, to do so.
Held: A tenant granted by a mortgagor in breach of his mortgage is estopped from denying the validity of the lease (or sublease) while his occupation thereunder remains undisturbed.
Bridge L said: ‘on the facts of this case it is as plain as a pikestaff that the purpose of the bringing of these proceedings via Mrs. Quennell is not for her own benefit to protect or enforce the security which she holds as the transferee of the legal charge but for the benefit of her husband as mortgagor to enable him to sell the property with the benefit of vacant possession. In substance she is suing as his agent.’
Templeman LJ said: ‘The estate, rights and powers of a mortgagee, however, are only vested in a mortgagee to protect his position as a mortgagee and to enable him to obtain repayment. Subject to this, the property belongs in equity to the mortgagor.’ and ‘In the present case it is clear from the facts and the evidence that the mortgagee, Mrs. Quennell, is not bona fide exercising her rights and powers for her own purposes as mortgagee but for the purpose of enabling the landlord mortgagor (her own husband) to repudiate his contractual obligations and defeat the statutory tenancy of the tenant which is binding on the landlord. Mrs. Quennell does not even pretend to be acting in her own interests as mortgagee. She brings this action to oblige her husband. In my judgment the court must therefore treat this action, although in form brought by a mortgagee, as an action brought for and on behalf of the landlord mortgagor.’
Lord Denning MR: ‘So the objective is plain. It was not to enforce the security or to obtain repayment or anything of that kind. It was in order to get possession of the house and to overcome the protection of the Rent Acts.’ and ‘So here in modern times equity can step in so as to prevent a mortgagee, or a transferee from him, from getting possession of [the property] contrary to the justice of the case. A mortgagee will be restrained from getting possession except when it is sought bona fide and reasonably for the purpose of enforcing a security and then only subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit to impose. When the bank itself or building society lends the money, then it may be right to allow the mortgagee to obtain possession when the borrower is in default. But so long as the interest is paid, and there is none outstanding, equity has ample power to restrain any unjust use of the right to possession.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Bridge LJ, Templeman LJ

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 318, [1979] 1 All ER 568, [1978] EWCA Civ 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Abbey National Plc v Tufts CA 16-Feb-1999
A bankrupt husband, a mortgage broker, had applied for mortgage for his wife, fraudulently claiming that she had income. She appealed against an order for possession on the basis that he was agent of the bank, and that therefore the bank was fixed . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – The Co-Operative Bank Plc v Phillips ChD 21-Aug-2014
The bank had brought possession proceedings against the defendant under two legal charges securing personal guarantees. The proceedings had been abandoned, but the court now was asked whether costs for the defendant should be on the standard or . .
Cited – Downsview Nominees Ltd and Another v First City Corporation Ltd and Another PC 19-Nov-1992
(New Zealand) The holder of a second debenture appointed receivers to the assets. The first debenture holder then also appointed receivers not to obtain repayment of its debt, but to disrupt the work of the first appointed receivers and in order to . .
Cited – Cukurova Finance International Ltd and Another v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd PC 30-Jan-2013
(British Virgin Islands) The claimant sought to recover shareholdings given in charge.
Held: There was an event of default, which entitled ATT to accelerate the loan and to appropriate – or forfeit – the charged shares, but that relief against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Equity, Land

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183103

Peabody Donation Fund v Hay: CA 1986

After a warrant for possession has been executed, the court’s inherent jurisdiction to re-instate a tenant is available only where the original judgment is set aside or there is shown to have been some abuse of process in the obtaining of the warrant. The court made it clear that it cannot add to the requirements of the rules by treating failure to give notice to the occupier of the obtaining of a warrant for possession as being oppressive or an abuse of process.

Citations:

[1986] 19 HLR 145

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chater v Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd CA 3-Apr-2003
The plaintiff mortgagee had had his warrant for possession executed. He now appealed against an order re-instating the mortgagor to possession.
Held: The wife had been unaware of the charge, and had not been made party to the proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.199713

Altonwood Ltd v Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd: ChD 7 Mar 2005

The landlord claimed arrears of rent and other payments due under the lease of the football ground occupied by the club. A licence had been granted for the accomodation to be shared with Wimbledon Football Club. The rent varied with the gate receipts, and side letters provided for sums payable under the licence to be made to the landlords. One question was whether the licence agreement was supervened by an operating agreement when Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes.
Held: A playoff match to decide on promotion to the Premiership was a League match and not a Cup match within the definitions in the lease and the receipts fell within the turnover rent calculations. Excess payments had been made in error for complimentary tickets, but the lease did not allow any set off. The words ‘without any deduction or set-off’, were clear and sufficient to exclude any set off. There was no agreement to displace the rule that an early payment of rent did not displace a sum due later. The turnover rent was to ba calculated on a receipts basis.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 292 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Star Rider Limited v Inntrepreneur Pub Co 1998
A provision in the lease requiring payment of the rent ‘without any deduction or set off whatsoever’ was effective to exclude any right of deduction or set-off. . .
Cited – SL Sethia Liners Ltd v Naviagro Maritime Corporation 1981
The right of deduction and set off under a lease was ‘essentially an act of self-help’. . .
Cited – Federal Commerce Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc; (The ‘Nanfri’) CA 1978
The court considered whether claim as against a shipowner could be set off against sums due under a time charter hire.
Held: Save for any contractual provision to the contrary a tenant is entitled to deduct from the rent payable, so as to . .
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 – Lord Ashburton v Nocton CA 1915
The parties to a lease can agree that an early payment of rent will satsify the duty to pay rent due later, displacing the rule that an early payment does not satisfy a later duty to make payment. . .
Cited – Nocton v Lord Ashburton HL 19-Jun-1914
The defendant solicitor had persuaded his client to release a charge, thus advancing the solicitor’s own subsequent charge on the same property. The action was started in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The statement of claim alleged fraud . .
Cited – De Nicholls v Saunders 1870
The existence of an agreement (and the payment in appropriate circumstances may evidence an agreement) between the landlord and tenant that on the day that the rent becomes due an earlier payment shall be treated as a fulfilment of the obligation to . .
Distinguished – SB Property Co Ltd v Chelsea Football and Athletic Co Ltd ChD 6-Nov-1990
Clause 1 of the lease provided that the quarterly rent should be the higher of: (a) the amount payable by the landlord as interest on certain borrowings; and (b) 10% of the Club’s gross receipts as defined. The question arose as to treatment of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Remblance v Octagon Assets Ltd CA 17-Jun-2009
A statutory demand was served against the guarantor of the lease after rent arrears arose. He applied for the demand to be set aside, and now appealed against its refusal. He said that the court would have set aside such a demand against the tenant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.223690

James and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1986

The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a mechanism for the compulsory transfer of the freehold interest in the house and the land to the tenant, with financial compensation to the landlord, cannot in itself be qualified in the circumstances as an inappropriate or disproportionate method for readjusting the law so as to meet the proper concern for the equitable distribution of ownership. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. ‘[T]he taking of property in the public interest without payment of compensation is treated as justifiable only in exceptional circumstances not relevant for present purposes. As far as Article 1 is concerned, the protection of the right to property it affords would be largely illusory and ineffective in the absence of any equivalent principle.’ and ‘Article 1 does not, however, guarantee a right to full compensation in all cases, since legitimate objectives of ‘public interest’, such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value.’
The court discussed a nation’s discretion as to what was in the public interest: ‘Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is ‘in the public interest’. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment both of the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures of deprivation of property and of the remedial action to be taken. Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly enjoy a certain margin of appreciation.
Furthermore, the notion of ‘public interest’ is necessarily extensive. In particular, as the Commission noted, the decision to enact laws expropriating property will commonly involve consideration of political, economic and social issues on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely. The Court, finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, will respect the legislature’s judgment as to what is ‘in the public interest’ unless that judgment be manifestly without reasonable foundation.’

Judges:

Ryssdal, P

Citations:

8793/79, (1986) 8 EHRR 123, [1986] ECHR 2, Series A no 98, [1986] RVR 139, [1986] RVR 139

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967, European Convention on Human Rights P1-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
Cited – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .

Cited by:

Considered – Ming Pao Newspapers Limited and others v The Attorney General of Hong Kong PC 20-May-1996
(Hong Kong) A newspaper had been ordered to reveal the source of a story wit regard to a corruption investigation. The statute required such disclosure only with regard to a named individual, and in this case no suspects name was yet known. The . .
Cited – M, Petitioner OHCS 11-Jul-2002
The petitioner challenged his detention and treatment as a mental patient under the 1984 Act, claiming that his human rights to a fair trial had been infringed. It was argued that since the Act automatically dispensed with his common law right to . .
Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Cited – Fisher and Another v English Nature Admn 4-Jul-2003
The claimants were trustees of land. The Respondent had notified the Secretary of State that they considered that part of the land satisfied the criteria to be certifed as being of special scientific interest. They now intended to confirm the . .
Cited – Stockholms Forsakrings- Och Skadestandsjuridik Ab v Sweden ECHR 16-Sep-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and . .
Cited – The Bahamas District of the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas and Others v The Hon Vernon J Symonette M P Speaker of the House of Assembly and 7 Others (No 70 of 1998) and Ormond Hilton Poitier and 14 Others v The Methodist Church PC 26-Jul-2000
PC (The Bahamas) The Methodist community had split, eventually leading to a new Act. Others now challenged the constitionality of the Act, and that lands had been transferred in breach of the constitution.
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe CA 5-Mar-2004
The claimant had applied to the Child Support Agncy for maintenance. They failed utterly to obtain payment, and she complained now that she was denied the opportunity by the 1991 Act to take court proceedings herself.
Held: The denial of . .
Cited – Gita Ram v Baskinder Ram,Solinder Ram, Monder Ram and Maurice William Russell CA 5-Nov-2004
A bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy disposed of his share in a house at an undervalue. His wife appealed an order that the share disposed of should vest entirely in the trustee in bankruptcy. Matrimonial proceedings had also been commenced.
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Cited – Kehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
Cited – PM v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jul-2005
A father complained that tax deductions which were granted to married fathers but not to unmarried fathers were discriminatory. He had paid maintenance for his daughter, but was not allowed to set the payments off against his income tax in the way . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Cadogan and others v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd, Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Aggio and others HL 25-Jun-2008
In each case all or part of a building was let by a head-lease and then as self-contained units under sub-leases. The head lessees had served notices under the 1993 Act requiring new leases. The freeholder denied that they were qualifying tenants, . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy CA 10-Feb-2012
The appellants owned a guesthouse. They appealed from being found in breach of the Regulations. They had declined to honour a booking by the respondents of a room upon learning that they were a homosexual couple. The appellants had said that they . .
Cited – Humphreys v Revenue and Customs SC 16-May-2012
Separated parents shared the care of their child. The father complained that all the Child Tax Credit was given to the mother.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the rule does happen to be indirectly discriminatory against fathers, the . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Cited – Cusack v London Borough of Harrow SC 19-Jun-2013
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road . .
Cited – Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Cited – DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Landlord and Tenant, Rating

Leading Case

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.164955

Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Gardens Development Limited: 1971

The defendant, a building contractor, had been allowed into occupation of a site owned by the plaintiff council under a building contract. The council had sought to determine the contract by notice under its terms. The contractor refused to vacate the site. The council brought proceedings for injunctions restraining the contractor from ‘entering, remaining or otherwise trespassing’ on the site.
Held: The court rejected a submission that a certifying architect was obliged to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He was obliged to retain his independence in exercising his judgment, but, unless the contract so provides, he need not go further and observe rules of natural justice. For the rules of natural justice to apply, there must be something in the nature of a judicial situation, and this was not the case with the architect. The court considered whether a licensee who is in actual occupation may have the protection of the law of trespass against intruders. Megarry J: ‘in recent years it has been established that a person who has no more than a licence may yet have possession of the land.’ and ‘The contractor is in de facto control of the site, and whether or not that control amounts in law to possession, the injunction would in effect expel the contractor from the site and enable the borough to re-assert its rights of ownership. ‘ The court considered a submission that the contractor was in possession of the site – in which case the injunctions sought would, clearly, have been inappropriate: ‘I do not think that I have to decide these or a number of other matters relating to possession. First, I am not at all sure that the matter is determined by the language of the contract. It is in a standard form [containing R.I.B.A. conditions], and may be used in a wide variety of circumstances. In some the building owner may be in manifest possession of the site, and may remain so, despite the building operations. In others, the building owner may de facto, at all events, exercise no rights of possession or control, but leave the contractor in sole and undisputed control of the site. Second, in recent years it has become established that a person who has no more than a licence may yet have possession of the land. Though one of the badges of a tenancy or other interest in land, possession is not necessarily denied to a licensee.’

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1971] 1 Ch 233, [1970] 3 WLR 538, [1970] 3 All ER 326

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Panamena Europea Navigacion v Frederick Leyland and Co HL 1947
The parties had entered into an agreement providing for arbitration of any disputes. Lord Thankerton said: ‘By entering into the contract the respondents agreed that the appellant’s surveyor should discharge both these duties and therefore they . .

Cited by:

Cited – Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 17-Mar-2005
The contractors appealed a decision that an arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear a claim against them in respect of works carried out on the Thelwall viaduct. The contractors denied that there had been a dispute which could found a reference, and no . .
Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 23-Feb-1999
The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224304

Somerfield Stores Ltd v Spring (Sutton Coldfield) Ltd: ChD 4 Aug 2010

The landlord had opposed the renewal of the claimant’s business tenancies saying that it wished to redevelop the sites. Before the matter came to trial, the landlord went into administration, and the tenant sought summary judgment. It now appealed against refusal.
Held: The appeal failed. The date of the hearing at which the necessary intention must be shown to exist is always the date of the substantive trial of the landlord’s ground of objection. The case law pre-dated the availability of summary judgments under the CPR, and ‘ the essential nature of the summary judgment jurisdiction, which is to determine whether a party has a real prospect of establishing his cause of action (or defence as the case may be) at a future trial date. In most cases of course the facts relied on will have occurred at some previous date, so the issue at the summary judgment hearing in relation to those facts will be whether there is a real prospect that the evidence available at trial will be sufficient to establish that the alleged facts had already occurred. The ‘real prospect’ test is a forward-looking one (as the word ‘prospect’ itself implies), and means that the court is entitled to have regard to evidence that may realistically be expected to emerge between the date of the summary judgment hearing and the trial itself.’
At any summary judgment application the question to be considered is whether, looking forward to the anticipated date of trial, the landlord can show a real prospect of being able to establish the necessary intention at that future date. Insofar as it is necessary to show a reasonable prospect of being able to commence work by reference to a particular date, that date would also have to be determined by reference to the anticipated date of trial.

Judges:

David Cooke J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2084 (Ch), [2010] WLR (D) 231, [2011] L and TR 8, [2010] 33 EG 71 (CS), [2010] 47 EG 142

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 – Betty’s Cafe Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd HL 1958
On a renewal of a tenancy a landlord’s counter-notice under section 26(6) relied on section 30(1)(f) and (g).
Held: (Lord Keith dissenting) The court was bound to have regard to the position as it was on the date of the order. The landlord . .
Cited – Dutch Oven Ltd v Egham Estate and Investment Co Ltd ChD 1968
Megarry J was asked which was the relevant hearing when a court considered the condition of a landlord’s intention to redevelop premises to support a refusal of a new tenancy. He approved an application that the landlord’s ground of opposition be . .
Cited – Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald CA 12-May-2000
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421364

Rees-Davies v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster: LT 31 Dec 1994

Citations:

LRA/18/1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Personal Representatives of W R Rees-Davies Deceased v City of Westminster CA 7-May-1998
Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of claim to Lands Tribunal. . .
At Lands Tribunal – Personal Representatives of W R Rees Davies Deceased v City of Westminster CA 27-Aug-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.168641

Matier v Christchurch Gardens (Epsom) Ltd: UTLC 15 Feb 2017

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – FTT procedure – appeal against award of costs for unreasonable conduct – s.29, Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – rule 13(1)(b), Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 – disregard of directions – personal attacks in correspondence – over lengthy and repetitive submissions – unrepresented party – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 56 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 13(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575358

Jetha and Another v Basildon Court Residents Company Ltd: UTLC 16 Feb 2017

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – condition precedent to the tenant’s liability which required the service charges to be approved at an AGM by a majority of the Members- no such resolution passed – whether tenant estopped by convention from relying upon the condition precedent – no estoppel. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 58 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575357

Salehabady v Trustees of The Eyre Estate: UTLC 16 Feb 2017

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – PROCEDURE – Time for starting proceedings – Application for lease extension posted within statutory time limit but received by First Tier Tribunal after relevant date – whether time barred – held by the FTT time barred – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 60 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575361

Artist Court Collective Ltd v Khan: ChD 7 Oct 2016

The Defendant owned the freehold. He transferred the property to a S Ltd of which he had control, and which executed a deed declaring that it was held in trust for the defendant. On learning this the majority tenants formed the claimant company to seek to purchase the freehold. S Ltd transferred the property to the defendant for no consideration. The tenant’s company obtained a declaration that the defendant was a purchaser within s11(3). The defendant appealed saying that it had been an exempt disposal within 4(2)(g).
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 4(2)(g) applied when the estate or interest was held ‘on trust for any person’ at the time of the disposal, and when that disposal was ‘in connection with the appointment of a new trustee or in connection with the discharge of any trustee’. Nothing hindered it being used where the legal estate was transferred to the beneficiary so s to satisfy the trusts on which it was held. ‘In connection with the discharge of any trustee’ were wide enough to cover such a situation, and there was no reason to confine their scope to situations where the trustee of a continuing trust was discharged, whether or not a new trustee was appointed in his place.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2453 (Ch), [2017] Ch 53, [2016] 3 WLR 1619, [2016] WLR(D) 508

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.569923

P R Hardman and Partners v Greenwood and Another: CA 10 Feb 2017

The Court was asked whether, and if so to what extent, occupiers of pitches on a caravan park are liable, pursuant to agreements to which the 1983 Act applies, to pay the owners of the park for the owners’ costs, expense and trouble in providing, administering and maintaining utilities.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Davis, Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 52

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mobile Homes Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574304

Tedworth North Management Ltd and Another v Miller and Others: UTLC 25 Nov 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Service Charges – single-glazed metal windows requiring re-decoration and minor repairs to timber sub-frames – some leaseholders electing to pay for replacement double-glazed windows in metal sub-frames – cost of glazing units recharged to participating leaseholders – whether replacement of sub-frames a repair chargeable to service charge – apportionment of costs – whether costs of management incurred under QLTA – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 522 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573880

Bucklitsch v Merchant Exchange Management Company Ltd (Landlord and Tenant : Service Charges): UTLC 14 Dec 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – Condition precedent to the lessee’s liability — whether lessee prevented by estoppel by convention or waiver from relying upon the condition precedent

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 527 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573881

East Tower Apartments Ltd v No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd: UTLC 19 Dec 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – liability of underlessees to pay for utilities ‘consumed’ – meters believed to be unreliable – whether underlessees liable to pay bills based on estimated consumption – determination of unit rate – whether standing charges and other fixed charges properly included – whether recoverable charges limited by OFGEM guidance – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 553 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573882

Southwark Council v Various Lessees of The St Saviours Estate: UTLC 13 Jan 2017

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – application by tenants – whether front doors in disrepair and if so whether replacement constituted appropriate means of repair – appeal by landlord against decision of First-tier Tribunal – sufficiency of reasons – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 10 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573874

Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Kenyon and Others (Occupiers of Pitches At Bartington Hall Park): UTLC 25 Jan 2017

UTLC PARK HOMES – Pitch Fee Review – annual licence fee payable by park owner to local authority – delay in introducing licence fee – whether fee to be taken into account in determining pitch fee review – paras 18(1)(ba) and 20(A1), Sch 1, Mobile Homes Act 1983 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 28 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mobile Homes Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573876

Reiner and Another v Triplark Ltd: UTLC 6 Jan 2017

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – covenants — Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s.168(4) — alleged breach of covenant against parting with possession without consent — completion of sale of flat by execution of transfer of registered underlease and payment of price — assignee not yet registered as proprietor at Land Registry — whether a parting with possession — Land Registration Act 2002 ss. 23, 24 and 27 — Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 s.6 — whether relevant consent (namely that of a right to manage company) unreasonably withheld — right to manage company not notifying landlord of proposed assignment — Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 — Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ss. 98 and 99

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 524 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573884

Knapper and Others (Members of Point Curlew Tenants Association) v Francis and Another: UTLC 10 Jan 2017

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – payment on account -approach to reasonableness of estimated expenditure where determination occurs after period of account – expenditure not incurred – whether to be taken into account – necessary adjustment – section 19(2), Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 3 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573872

Tobicon Ltd v Collinson and Others: UTLC 6 Mar 2013

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – no appearance by landlord in LVT proceedings – whether proceedings properly served on the landlord or his agent – Upper Tribunal’s powers where no proper service – landlord well aware of proceedings – service on a party outside the UK dispensed with – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 47 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.509222

Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd and Another: CA 1 Jul 1981

The proposed tenant wanted to get into possession, and was given a key and paid a quarter’s rent to the lessor’s solicitors to be held as stakeholders, before the lease had been formally granted. An undated lease and counterpart were executed and exchanged, but said to be sent in escrow until certain conditions were fulfilled. When the proposed landlords were unable to remove a charge, the tenant sought to withdraw. The landlord said that he could not do so. The lease remained undated.
Held: The tenant could withdraw, but owed rent from the date of delivery of the deed in escrow. The date of the lease was the date of the delivery in escrow. Lord Denning MR explained the doctrine of escrow: ‘What is the effect of an escrow before the conditions are fulfilled? One thing is clear. While the conditions are in suspense, the maker of the escrow cannot recall it. He cannot dispose of the land or mortgage it in derogation of the grant which he has made. He is bound to adhere to the grant for a reasonable time so as to see whether the conditions are to be fulfilled or not. If the conditions are not fulfilled at all, or not fulfilled within a reasonable time, he can renounce it. On his doing so, the transaction fails altogether. It has no effect at all. But if the conditions are fulfilled within a reasonable time, then the conveyance or other disposition is binding on him absolutely. It becomes effective to pass the title to the land or other interest in the land from the grantor to the grantee. The title is then said to ‘relate back’ to the time when the document was executed and delivered as an escrow. But this only means that no further deed or act is necessary in order to perfect the title of the grantee. As between grantor and grantee, it must be regarded as a valid transaction which was effective to pass the title to the grantee as at the date of the escrow’

Lord Denning MR, Ackner LJ, Sir Denys Buckley
[1982] Ch 511, [1981] EWCA Civ 1, [1981] 3 WLR 892, 260 EG 173, [1981] 3 All ER 481, 43 P and CR 192
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Eccles v Bryant and Pollock CA 1947
The Plaintiff contended that a letter written by the purchaser’s solicitor which effectively set out the terms of the agreement, enclosed the part of the contract signed by the purchaser, and asked in exchange for the counter-part signed by the . .
Cited – Harrison v Battye 1974
Where it is intended that a contract should come into existence upon exchange of contract document parts executed by the various parties, it was necessary for the parts exchanged to be identical. The effective date when parties are bound is the date . .
Cited – Re Duke of Devonshire’s Settlement 1952
DukeDevon1952
Vaisey J said: ‘As a rule the date properly to be inserted in a deed delivered as an escrow is the date at which it was so delivered and not the date when the condition of the delivery has been fulfilled.’ . .
Cited – Butler v Baker’s case 1591
The doctrine that a deed delivered in escrow operates from the time of delivery once the condition is fulfilled, does not operate as against a third party. . .
Cited – Xenos v Wickham HL 1866
Delivery of document in Escrow
Blackburn J said that a deed is delivered ‘as soon as there are acts or words sufficient to [show] that it is intended by the party to be executed as his deed presently binding on him.’
Lord Cranworth said: ‘The maker (of a deed) may so . .
Cited – Foundling Hospital Governors v Crane 1911
Farwell LJ approved the description of the operation of the doctrine of escrow as follows: ‘The rules respecting escrows are, 1st, The writing will not operate as a deed till the second delivery. 2ndly, The party deputed to make the second delivery, . .
Cited – Cory (Wm) and Son Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1964
Diplock LJ discussed the status of a deed delivered in escrow: ‘So long as it remains an escrow it is not yet executed as a deed; for delivery again as a deed is required before it becomes one. While an escrow it conveys nothing, it transfers . .
Cited – Terrapin International Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1976
A deed had been delivered in escrow, but, before the condition was fulfilled, the rates of stamp duty changed. The parties disputed the effective date of the transaction.
Held: Walton J considered what was the effect of a deed being held in . .
Cited – Kingston v Ambrian Investment Co Ltd 1975
Once a party has delivered a document in escrow, he must await the conditional event before he can recall the deed. . .
Cited – Security Trust Co v The Royal Bank of Canada PC 1-Dec-1975
(Bahamas) A company, Fisher agreed to buy land with part of the purchase price to be paid by a fixed date and the balance secured by a mortgage to the vendor. A conveyance and a mortgage were duly executed and held in escrow pending payment of the . .
Cited – Tupper v Foulkes 1861
Anything which shows that a party treats an instrument as his deed will suffice to make it his deed. . .

Cited by:
Distinguished – Dyment v Boyden and others CA 26-Nov-2004
Mrs D had gone into business with the respondents to operate a residential care home. It was to be run from premises owned by the respondents. The respondents inter alia had failed to disclose previous convictions, the registration was cancelled, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.220263

Hill v Barclay: ChD 2 Mar 1810

The Plaintiff was tenant for years under the Defendant; with covenants to lay out pounds 150, within a given time: to keep the premises in repair; to leave them in repair at the end of the term; that it should be lawful for the Defendant twice in the year to enter, and survey the premises; and to require the necessary repairs to be done within three calendar months; and a right of entry was reserved upon breach of any of the covenants.
An Ejectment being brought by the landlord, assigning various breaches of the covenant to repair, a motion was made for an Injunction.

Lord Eldon LC
[1810] EWHC Ch J30
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.241580

Barnhart v Greenshields: PC 5 Dec 1853

Pemberton Leigh said: ‘With respect to the effect of possession merely, we take the law to be, that if there be a tenant in possession of land, a purchaser is bound by all the equities which the tenant could enforce against the vendor, and that the equity of the tenant extends not only to interests connected with his tenancy, as in Taylor v Stibbert (2 Ves. Jun. 437), but also to interests under collateral agreements, as in Daniels v Davison (16 Ves. 249; 17 id. 433) and Allen v Anthony (21 Mer. 282), the principle being the same in both classes of cases – namely, that the possession of the tenant is notice that he has some interest in the land, and that a purchaser having notice of that fact is bound, according to the ordinary rule, either to inquire what that interest is or to give effect to it, whatever it may be.’

Pemberton Leigh
[1853] 99 Moore PC18, [1853] EngR 1060, (1853) 9 Moo PC 18, (1853) 14 ER 204
Commonlii
Canada
Cited by:
Adopted – Green v Rheinberg CA 1911
. .
Cited – Hodgson v Marks CA 12-Mar-1971
The plaintiff had transferred her house to her lodger, expressing it to be for her love and affection for him. The judge at first instance had held that the true intention of the plaintiff had been that she would continue to live there as before and . .
Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA 13-May-1988
Claim by a wife that she has a beneficial interest in a house registered in the sole name of her husband and that her interest has priority over the rights of a bank under a legal charge executed without her knowledge. The case raises a point of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.242648

Strand Securities Ltd v Caswell: CA 2 Feb 1965

The leaving of furniture in a flat or having a key to the flat or making occasional use of it was not enough to constitute actual occupation. Where A permits B to occupy land on B’s own behalf by way of gratuitous licence, A’s capacity as licensor will not by itself entitle him to claim to be in actual occupation of the land, though the position will be different if B occupies as the representative of A.
Lord Denning MR said that object of section 70(1)(g) was ‘to protect a person in actual occupation of land from having his rights lost in the welter of registration . . No one can buy the land over his head and thereby take away or diminish his rights’
Russell LJ accepted that, if a tenant puts a resident caretaker into a residential flat to look after it, that would be actual occupation by the tenant. Russell L.J. observed that the caretaker, by her occupation for which she was employed, would be the representative of the tenant and her occupation might therefore be regarded as his.

Lord Denning MR, Russell LJ
[1965] Ch 958, [1965] EWCA Civ 1
Bailii
Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Lloyd and others v Dugdale and Another CA 21-Nov-2001
The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on . .
Cited – Link Lending Ltd v Bustard CA 23-Apr-2010
The respondent had been detained in a secure mental unit for a year. In that time her home was charged to the appellant. She asserted that she had been a person in actual occupation. The chargee now appealed against a finding that the respondent had . .
Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA 13-May-1988
Claim by a wife that she has a beneficial interest in a house registered in the sole name of her husband and that her interest has priority over the rights of a bank under a legal charge executed without her knowledge. The case raises a point of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.183128

Goldmile Properties Limited v Speiro Lechouritis: CA 29 Jan 2003

The tenant claimed damages form his landlord for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The landlord was obliged to repair the building, and in his doing so the tenant suffered losses through interruptions. The question was whether the Landlord had to use all possible resources to avoid interruption of the tenant’s business, or only make reasonable attempts to do so.
Held: This particular covenant for quiet enjoyment was qualified. The covenant for quiet enjoyment is not a guarantee against all disturbance: it guarantees against disturbance only of that which is demised, and the demise includes the lessor’s obligation to use its reasonable endeavours to keep the building in repair. As to the interprtetation of conflicting words in a contract: ‘It is axiomatic that where the provisions of any contract, including a lease, come into conflict, they are to be interpreted and applied so as to give proper effect, if possible, to both of them.’ Appeal dismissed.

Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Rix
[2003] 2 P and CR 1, [2003] EWCA Civ 49, Gazette 03-Apr-2003
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited – Saner v Bilton ChD 22-Jan-1878
In a lease of a newly constructed grain warehouse there was a covenant by the lessor that he would during the term ‘ keep the main walls and main timbers of the warehouse ‘in good repair and condition.’ The lessee entered under the lease and stored . .
Cited – Lyttelton Times Company Ltd v Warners Ltd PC 1906
(New Zealand) The plaintiffs owned a hotel in Christchurch, next to the premises in which the defendants operated a printing press running 24 hours. They made an agreement under which the defendants would rebuild their premises and grant a lease of . .
Cited – Owen v Gadd CA 1956
The lessors had let a ground floor shop to the lessee. To repair to the first floor, they erected scaffolding. They did what they could to minimise inconvenience to the lessee. They completed the repairs within a fortnight. The scaffolding hindered, . .

Cited by:
Cited – Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.178792

Saner v Bilton: ChD 22 Jan 1878

In a lease of a newly constructed grain warehouse there was a covenant by the lessor that he would during the term ‘ keep the main walls and main timbers of the warehouse ‘in good repair and condition.’ The lessee entered under the lease and stored grain in it, in (as the Court held upon the evidence) a reasonable and proper way. After a short time a beam which supported one of the floors broke, and ultimately the external walls sank and bulged outwards, and the lessor spent a large sum in repairing the premises. In an action by the lessor to recover from the lessee what he had thus expended.
Held: that the lessee had not been guilty of waste.
Held: also, that the lessor was bound under his covenant to put the walls and main timbers in good repair, having regard to the class of buildings to which the warehouse belonged, and not merely to the condition of the particular building.
Held: also, that the covenant implied a license by the tenant to the landlord to enter upon the premises for a reasonable time for the purpose of executing the necessary repairs.
The lease contained a proviso that, in case the warehouse, or any part thereof, should at any time during the term ‘ be destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, storm, tempest, or other inevitable accident,’ the rent, or a just proportion thereof, should cease or abate so long as the premises should continue wholly or partly untenantable or unfit for use or occupation in consequence of such destruction or damage. During the period in which the lessor was executing the repairs the lessee was excluded from the use and occupation of the whole or a part of the premises, and he claimed an abatement of rent under the proviso.
Held: that the words ‘inevitable accident’ imported something ejusdem generis with what had been previously mentioned, and did not apply to that which, though not avoidable so far as the lessee was concerned, was not in its nature inevitable, but resulted from the default of the lessor, and that the lessee was not entitled to an abatement of rent.
A lessor’s covenant to do structural repairs carried an implied licence to enter for that purpose. Fry J said: ‘It is further said that the construction of the covenant, as carrying with it an implied licence to enter, is inconsistent with the lessor’s covenant for quiet enjoyment. I do not think it is, and for this reason, that the covenant for quiet enjoyment, if read as absolutely unqualified, is as inconsistent with an entry on the warehouse for a single moment as it is with an occupation for a month or a year . . I think the covenant for quiet enjoyment must be read as subject to the licence which I have held to be implied in the covenant to repair.’

Fry J
(1878) 7 Ch D 815, [1878] UKLawRpCh 27
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Goldmile Properties Limited v Speiro Lechouritis CA 29-Jan-2003
The tenant claimed damages form his landlord for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The landlord was obliged to repair the building, and in his doing so the tenant suffered losses through interruptions. The question was whether the Landlord . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.182775

Elleray v Bourne and Others, Re Cummings Hall Lane (Park Homes – Sale): UTLC 12 Jan 2018

PARK HOMES – SALE – payment of commission to site owner by buyer – claim against seller for reimbursement of overpaid commission – whether commission payable out of agreed sale price or in addition to it – Mobile Homes (Selling and Gifting) (England) Regulations 2013 – appeal dismissed

[2018] UKUT 3 (LC)
Bailii
Mobile Homes (Selling and Gifting) (England) Regulations 2013
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.602929