Category: Landlord and Tenant

Thomas Homes Ltd v MacGregor: UTLC 14 Nov 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges — drafting error in lease apparently entitling landlord to recover about 3000% of relevant expenses — no application yet made for variation under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 section 35 and following — amount recoverable by way of on account payments in respect of service charge — Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 19(2)

[2016] UKUT 495 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 35
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571764

London Borough of Southwark v Proktor: UTLC 14 Nov 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Service Charges – non-compliance with contractual procedure – estimate for the purposes of obtaining on account payments omitting to include any element regarding major works – whether landlord entitled to rely on the estimate to recover on account payments towards ordinary service charge expenses

[2016] UKUT 504 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571763

The Portman Estate Nominees (One) Ltd and Another v Starlight Headlease Ltd: UTLC 1 Nov 2016

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – intermediate leasehold interest – flat and parking space held on separate leases and intermediate leases – division of landlord’s share of marriage value – para. 10(2), Sch 13, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – s. 3, Human Rights Act 1998 – Art. 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 467 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571443

Octagon Overseas Ltd and Another v Various Leaseholders: UTLC 1 Nov 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER – application for stay of appointment and for permission to appeal – standard to be applied to proposed appeals against discretionary decisions – use of first-tier tribunal’s power to give directions to manager or to amend order – s.24, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – applications refused

[2016] UKUT 470 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571442

Gateway Property Holdings Ltd v Westwood (Colchester) Rtm Co Ltd: UTLC 3 Nov 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – payment of accrued uncommitted service charges to RTM company – whether wrongly posted management charge correctly calculated by FTT – appeal allowed – s.94 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

[2016] UKUT 489 (LC)
Bailii
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 94
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571440

Mallory and Others v Orchidbase Ltd: UTLC 2 Nov 2016

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Premium – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Schedule 13, Part II – unimproved freehold value – existing lease value – relativity – transactional evidence – relativity graphs – transactional evidence preferred – premium determined at andpound;21,908

[2016] UKUT 468 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571441

4-6 Trinity Church Square Freehold Ltd v The Corporation of The Trinity House of Deptford Strond: UTLC 8 Nov 2016

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT – leases conferring revocable right to use garden – respondent offering revocable rights in lieu of acquisition of freehold of garden – competing requirements of permanence and equivalence – s.1(4)(a) Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

[2016] UKUT 484 (LC)
Bailii
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 1(4)(a)
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571438

Saint v Kightley: UTLC 31 Oct 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – rent determination – fair rent – sufficiency of reasons for First-tier Tribunal’s decision on open market rent and adjustments for condition and improvements – s.70 Rent Act 1977 – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 459 (LC)
Bailii
Rent Act 1977 70
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571436

87 St George’s Square Management Ltd v Whiteside: UTLC 10 Oct 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – administration charge – leasehold covenant requiring tenant to pay landlord’s costs of enforcement proceedings – determination of service charge liability by F-tT – partially successful application for costs under rule 13 – whether costs may subsequently be claimed as a contractual administration charge – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 438 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571430

Avon Freeholds Ltd v Garnier: UTLC 31 Oct 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Administration charge – charge made by landlord for entering into a deed granting retrospective consent to alterations to a flat – whether administration charge had been agreed or admitted by tenant – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11 paragraph 5

[2016] UKUT 477 (LC)
Bailii
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571431

Jarowicki v Freehold Managers (Nominees) Ltd: UTLC 12 Oct 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – responsibility of first-tier tribunal to determine amount payable – need for transparency and clarity – s27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – appeals allowed

[2016] UKUT 435 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27a
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571433

Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye: ChD 7 Oct 2016

The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the County court, against whose finding and order that the notices were invalid, both defendants now appealed. The landlords argued that the usual requirement for such a notice to be given by the person in whom the reversionary estate is vested did not apply to an agricultural tenancy.
Held: The court rejected that argument. Distinguishing Scribes, West, the argument under section 141 of the 1925 Act failed also.

Norris J
[2016] EWHC 2454 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 519
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002 27(10, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 96, Law of Property Act 1925 141(2), Land Registration Act 2002 24
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stait v Fenner 1912
The lease to Fenner contained a break clause. The lease was legally assigned to X and then to Y. Y then agreed to assign back to Fenner (but no formal assignment was entered). Fenner then ‘assigned’ to Z (the contract saying that he was not obliged . .
Cited – Schalit v Joseph Nadler Ltd CA 1933
Mr Nadler was a lessee of property, part of which he sublet to the plaintiff. In 1931 he made a declaration of trust, under which he declared that the property was held in trust for his company, Joseph Nadler Ltd. Shortly after the company purported . .
Cited – Freeman v Hambrook 1947
. .
Cited – Thompson v McCullough CA 1947
Thompson had agreed to buy a tenanted property, had paid part of the purchase price, and had received a conveyance in escrow pending payment of the balance. He at that point gave McCullough notice to quit. Two months later Thompson paid the balance . .
Cited – Lever Finance Ltd v Needleman’s Trustee ChD 1954
In a mortgage, the transferee of a registered charge appointed a receiver during the ‘registration gap’.
Held: Until registration the transferee could not exercise the statutory power to appoint a receiver. . .
Cited – Smith v Express Dairy Limited ChD 1954
Express Dairy (as registered owner) let a shop to Smith, but then transferred its interest to a subsidiary company. The subsidiary did not become registered as owner but nonetheless served notice to quit on Smith.
Held: Unless the subsidiary . .
Cited – Divall v Harrison CA 1992
A notice to quit the agricultural land had been given in the name of the residuary beneficiary, not in the name of the executors in whom the reversion was still vested.
Held: The notice was invalid. The residuary beneficiary was not the . .
Cited – Renshaw v Magnet Properties South East LLP 2008
(Central London County Court) . .
Cited – Lankester and Son Ltd v Rennie and Another CA 2-Dec-2014
The transfer of a lease remained unregistered.
Held: The court acknowledged the importance of not confusing the equitable rights as between transferor and transferee with the legal rights as between landlord and tenant. . .
Distinguished – Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570346

Peverel OM Ltd v Wernick and Another: UTLC 15 Nov 2010

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – appeal by way of rehearing following review of LVT decision – concierge and on-costs 2005/6 – appeal dismissed – miscellaneous items 2005/6 – appeal allowed – figure determined by LVT increased from andpound;13,052.41 to andpound;15,884.36.

N J Rose FRICS
[2010] UKUT 402 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569612

Holding and Management (Solitaire) Ltd v Sherwin: UTLC 10 Dec 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – limitation on service charges where costs incurred more than 18 months before demand – advance payments and balancing charges – held no limitation on advance payments – held no limitation on balancing charges since relevant costs incurred less than 18 months before demand – appeal allowed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s 20B

[2010] UKUT 412 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569615

Cadogan Square Properties Ltd v Cadogan: UTLC 3 Dec 2010

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – deferment rate – leases under 20 years unexpired – prime central London – alternative methods of determination considered – net rental yield and formula based methods rejected – determined by exercise of valuation judgment

[2010] UKUT 427 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569614

Moskovitz and Others v 75 Worple Road RTM Company Ltd: UTLC 27 Oct 2010

LANDLORD AND TENANT – right to manage – claim notice – validity – contents of claim notice – whether date specified for response too early – held that it was – whether notice inavalid as consequence – held that it was – appeal allowed – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, ss 79, 80 and 81

[2010] UKUT 393 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569603

23 Dollis Avenue (1998) Ltd v Vejdani and Another: UTLC 16 Aug 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – house converted into four flats – management company – validity of s20 Notice –reasonableness of amounts claimed – amounts reduced to exclude elements not specified in s20 Notice – appeal allowed in part

[2016] UKUT 365
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569581

Cannon and Another v 38 Lambs Conduit Llp: UTLC 11 Aug 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Service Charges- failure of demand to comply with section 47 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – whether legal costs of tribunal proceedings and costs of surveyor recoverable pursuant to service charge clause in lease- reimbursement of tribunal fees – appeal allowed in part

[2016] UKUT 371 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 47
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569583

Admiralty Park Management Company Ltd v OJO: UTLC 20 Sep 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – failure to comply with contractual method of calculation – no objection by tenant – whether service charge payable – estoppel by convention – whether first-tier tribunal entitled to raise issue not previously relied on by tenant – procedural fairness – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 421 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569589

Chouhan v The Earls High School: UTLC 15 Sep 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION – assured periodic tenancy – whether agreement provided for contractual rent review and so precluded reference of proposed new rent to tribunal – whether mere statement of tenants’ rights – ss 13-14, Housing Act 1988 – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 405 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569590

Leaseholders of Foundling Court and O’Donnell Court v The London Borough of Camden and Others: UTLC 10 Aug 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – preliminary issues – major work to be undertaken by head landlord – whether duty to consult falls on head landlord or intermediate landlord – long term qualifying agreement – case management applications

[2016] UKUT 366 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569586

Cowling v Worcester Community Housing Ltd: CA 3 Dec 2015

Renewed application by Mrs Cowling for permission to appeal against an order allowing in part Mrs Cowling’s appeal against the decision ordering her to give possession of the dwelling-house in Worcester, and to pay arrears of service charge amounting in total to andpound;511.51.

Lindblom LJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1624
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568846

Sir John Smith, Knight v Thomas Starling Day And Henry Framlingham Day, Executors Of Sir Haylett Framlingham, Deceased: 1837

An executor, after payment of all the debts of which he had notice, invested certain parts of the residue of the testator’s personal estate remaining in his hands, in the funds in his own name, received the dividends, arid paid them over to the legatees in satisfaction of their legacies given by the will :-Held, that under these circumstances, the executor could not sustain a plea of plene acministravit to an action brought against him, 15 years after the testator’s death, for a specialty debt of the testator, of which he had had no notice. Where A, being seised in fee, leased premises to E for 61 years, and afterwards granted a lease to C of the same premises, to commence at the expiration of the 61 years :–Held, that, by the lease to C, A did not part with his reversion, so as to disentitle him to distrain for rent due from E, under his lease.

[1837] EngR 284, (1837) 2 M and W 684, (1837) 150 ER 931
Commonlii
England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.313401

Regina v Yuthiwattana: CACD 1984

The defendant appealed against his convictions under the 1977 Act.
Held: Under section 1(2) the deprivation of occupation for one day was insufficient. To constitute an offence, the deprivation had to take the character of an eviction. However, the appeal against the offence under section 1(3) failed. It was sufficient to establish that the acts, including in this casse an omission to act, complained of were calculated to interfere with the peace and comfort of the occupier and done with the intention of causing him to leave. In this case, the landlord’s failure to replace a lost key was found to be an ‘act’ of harassment against a tenant.

[1984] 128 SJ 661, [1984] Crim LR 562
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 1(2) 1(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Whitley v Stumbles HL 1930
The case concerned whether, under the Act, an incorporeal right of fishing, demised as part of a lease of an hotel, was part of the ‘premises’ for the purpose of the Act.
Held: The standard conveyancing meaning of the word ‘premises’ has long . .
Cited – Bracey v Read 1963
A tenancy of land used for training horses was a business tenancy within the 1954 Act. The word ‘premises’ is not defined in the Act. Its legal meaning is the subject matter of the habendum in a lease, and it would cover any sort of property of . .

Cited by:
Cited – National Trust for Places of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty v Knipe and Knipe CA 15-May-1997
The tenancy was of an agricultural holding, with protection under the 1986 Act. It had 350 acres of pasture, and two farmhouses. The tenants covenanted not to use the holding for any purpose other than agriculture, to farm it in accordance with the . .
Upheld – Regina v Burke HL 24-May-1990
The defendants appealed against their conviction under the 1977 Act.
Held: To amount to harrassment, the actions complained of need not be such as would give rise of themselves to civil or criminal action. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Crime

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.245852

Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd: CA 1936

The plaintiff was a professor of singing who had taken a lease of the second floor of a building for the purpose of carrying on his profession on the demised premises. After he had gone into possession and begun to give singing lessons, the landlord (who knew of his use of the premises) granted a lease of the first floor of the building to a different tenant and authorised him, under the terms of his lease, to execute various structural alterations. The effect of the works was to make it impossible for the plaintiff to carry on his profession for a period of three months.
Held: There is vicarious liability for independent contractors in cases of nuisance, particularly where no steps are taken to avoid the nuisance.
Slesser J approved the statement: ‘the law will never adjudge that a lessor covenants against the wrongful acts of strangers, except his covenant is expressed to that purpose; for the law itself does defend every man against wrong, and therefore though one warrants land to another expressly, yet he does not defend against tortious entries.’ (Williams’ Notes to Saunders’ Reports, Vol 2 at page 525)

Slesser and Romer LJJ and Finlay J
[1936] 2 All ER 633
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd ChD 1935
The plaintiff, a professor of singing, took a lease of one second floor of a building to carrying on his profession on the demised premises. After taking possession he began giving singing lessons. The landlord then, knowing of his use of the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.266302

Ahmed and Others v Murphy: Admn 10 May 2010

The landlords appealed against the maximum fair rent for premises as set by the Rent Assessment Committee. It had been found to be a capped rent, and set at andpound;8.50 per week. The landlords had wanted above andpound;140.00. The tenant was a protected tenant.
Held: The tenancy was a weekly furnished tenancy granted in 1974 after statutory protection was extended to furnished tenancies. It remains subject to the statutory regime for both protection and rent regulation that is applicable to such tenancies currently set out in the Rent Act 1977. The landlords said that the tenant having refused access to carry out improvements, the rent should be set on the basis that they had been carried out, applying the execption in section 70 of the 1977 Act. However there was no sufficient evidence of access being requested or refused.

Thornton J QC
[2010] EWHC 453 (Admin)
Bailii
The Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, Rent Act 1977 70
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.412275

Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd: ChD 1935

The plaintiff, a professor of singing, took a lease of one second floor of a building to carrying on his profession on the demised premises. After taking possession he began giving singing lessons. The landlord then, knowing of his use of the premises, let the first floor of the building to a different tenant authorised that new tenant in the lease, to make structural alterations, the effect which was to make it impossible for the plaintiff to carry on his profession for a period of three months.
Held: In consenting to the works on the first floor the landlord had breached the covenant for quiet enjoyment under the lease of the second floor. Charles J said: ‘The alterations in the present case continued from March to July, and during that time . . the premises were rendered uninhabitable and the physical enjoyment of those premises was completely destroyed. I find that under these circumstances the landlords have been guilty of a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.’

Charles J
[1935] All ER Rep 923
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Matania v National Provincial Bank Ltd CA 1936
The plaintiff was a professor of singing who had taken a lease of the second floor of a building for the purpose of carrying on his profession on the demised premises. After he had gone into possession and begun to give singing lessons, the landlord . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.517378

Appah v Parncliffe Investments Ltd: CA 1964

The test of whether a person is a lodger, as opposed to a sub-tenant, must be determined by the degree of control retained by the householder over the rooms which the lodger occupies.

Davies LJ
[1964] 1 WLR 1064, [1964] 1 All ER 838
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Allan v Liverpool Overseers 1874
The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .

Cited by:
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.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.247614

Chiswell v Griffon Land and Estates Ltd: CA 1975

Megaw LJ said: ‘Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 lays down the manner in which service of a notice can be effected. It is provided, as what I may call at any rate the primary means of effecting service, that it is to be done either by ‘personal’ service or by leaving the notice at the last-known place of abode, or by sending it through the post in a registered letter, or (as now applies) in a recorded delivery letter. If any of those methods are adopted, they being the primary methods laid down, and, in the event of dispute, it is proved that one of those methods has been adopted, then sufficient service is proved. Thus, if it is proved, in the event of dispute, that a notice was sent by recorded delivery, it does not matter that that recorded delivery letter may not have been received by the intended recipient. It does not matter, even if it were to be clearly established that it had gone astray in the post. There is the obvious, simple way of dealing with a notice of this sort. But, as I think may be assumed for the purposes of this appeal, if the person who gives the notice sees fit not to use one of those primary methods, but to send the notice through the post, not registered and not by recorded delivery, that will nevertheless be good notice, if in fact the letter is received by the person to whom the notice has to be given. But a person who chooses to use that method instead of one of the primary methods is taking the risk that, if the letter is indeed lost in the post, notice will not have been given.’

Megaw LJ
[1975] 1 WLR 1181
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 23
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Beanby Estates Ltd v Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Ltd ChD 9-May-2003
The landlord had served a notice under the 1954 Act. The tenant served a counter notice, but the question was whether he was late, or out of time.
Held: The combination of the various provisions meant that the landlord’s notice had irrevocably . .
Cited – C A Webber (Transport) Ltd v Railtrack plc CA 15-Jul-2003
A notice served under s25 of the 1954 Act, being sent by recorded delivery to the tenant at its place of abode, was irrebuttably deemed to have been served on the day it was posted. Section 23 of the 1927 Act operated to disapply section 7 of the . .
Cited – Railtrack Plc v Gojra and Gojra CA 28-Nov-1997
The tenant served two notices under the Act.
Held: The tenant’s application was out of time. If the first notice was valid, a later notice did not act to restart time running and the application for a new tenancy had to be begun within four . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.182408

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, but did not prevent, access to the lessee’s premises. It obscured his display of wares to some extent. A contractual provision denied the plaintiff an action for nuisance.
Held: The award of only nominal damages to the tenant was upheld. There could be a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment without an actual physical interruption into or upon demised premises on the part of the landlord. For there to be a case of interference with quiet enjoyment, there must be substantial physical interference with the enjoyment of the premises. ‘The question whether the quiet enjoyment of the premises demised has been interrupted or not is in every case one of fact; and the covenant is broken although neither the title to the land nor the possession of the land may be otherwise affected, where the ordinary and lawful enjoyment is substantially interfered with by the acts of the lessor or of those lawfully claiming under him.’
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘It was said by Mr. Chapman that we must further qualify the language of Fry L.J. and that there could be no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment unless there was what he called an actual physical irruption into or upon the premises demised on the part of the landlords or some persons authorized by them by their actually entering upon or invading the premises, or by, e.g., the irruption thereon of water emitted from the landlords’ premises elsewhere. In my judgment, that submission is not justified by the authorities. I do not think that there is any sufficient warrant for such a limitation [upon the statements of Fry LJ in Sanderson v Mayor of Berwick-on-Tweed (1884) 13 QBD 547]. Concluding, therefore, as I do, that in this case the judge was entitled to find as a fact that the interference was substantial and that there was no principle of law which disqualified him from concluding as he did, I think that this appeal must fail . .’
Whilst agreeing, Romer LJ said: ‘Then comes the question whether the degree of interruption be such as to constitute a ground for legal complaint or whether it should be merely dismissed on the ground of its being of a temporary character or on the ground of de minimis. That appears to me to be essentially a question of fact to be determined by the judge who tries the action . . I cannot see that the judge’s finding should be displaced by the considerations on which Mr Chapman relied, which may be summarized in this way: that the work of external repair which the lessors put in hand was reasonably necessary, that it was efficiently done and was done with all reasonable speed. I do not think that those considerations are really relevant to the question of whether there has been a breach of the tenant’s contractual rights under the covenant for quiet enjoyment . .’

Lord Evershed MR, Romer LJ, Birkett LJ
[1956] 2 QB 99
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: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.182776

Welby and Another v Casswell: QBD 28 Mar 1994

To inherit agricultural tenancy, the tenant applicant must derive all his income from agricultural activities. The term ‘principal source of income’ didn’t include overdraft or outside earnings.

Times 01-Apr-1994, Ind Summary 28-Mar-1994
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 36
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Welby and Another v Casswell CA 14-Apr-1995
A farming tenant drew his income from farming despite living off his overdraft on a small return from farming activities.
Held: The court should adopt a purposive construction. The right to inherit an agricultural tenancy survived if he worked . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Welby and Another v Casswell CA 14-Apr-1995
A farming tenant drew his income from farming despite living off his overdraft on a small return from farming activities.
Held: The court should adopt a purposive construction. The right to inherit an agricultural tenancy survived if he worked . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.90365

No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Led: CA 21 Feb 2018

The long lessee of a flat applies to the landlord for consent to assign. The landlord is not entitled unreasonably to refuse consent. The landlord refuses consent on three grounds. Of those three grounds, two are reasonable; the third is unreasonable. Is the refusal of consent valid?

Lord Justice Lewison
[2018] EWCA Civ 250, [2018] WLR(D) 161, [2018] 1 WLR 5682, [2018] L and TR 18, [2018] HLR 20
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.605313

Willow Court Management Company (1985) Ltd v Alexander: UTLC 21 Jun 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – FTT procedure – power to award costs for unreasonable conduct of proceedings – s.29, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – Rule 13(1)(b) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 – appeals allowed

[2016] UKUT 290 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567334

Roundlistic Ltd v Jones and Another: UTLC 7 Jul 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – alleged breach of covenant – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Section 168 – construction of covenant – whether a breach had occurred – whether landlord had become estopped from relying upon the covenant or had waived the right to do so – whether covenant unenforceable as being an unfair contract term

[2016] UKUT 325 (TCC)
Bailii
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 168
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567338

Billson v Tristem: ChD 1999

Rattee J
[2000] LandTR 220
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Billson; Findlay and Dr Ker (Trustees of the Gunter Estate) v Tristrem CA 4-Aug-1999
The tenant sought leave to appeal. Her landlord sought to recover a service charge. She said that under the lease the only element recoverable was in respect of the parts used by the flat in common with other flats in the building. As a basement . .
Cited – Campbell v Daejan Properties Ltd CA 20-Nov-2012
The tenant appealed against an order requiring the amendment of what was found to be an obvious error in the lease as to the responsibility of the lessor to make repairs to certain walls and rooves, and the apportionment of liability for payment of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.471573

Yamaha-Kemble Music (UK) Ltd v ARC Properties Ltd: ChD 1990

The defendant served a notice on the plaintiff tenants purportedly under the section. The defendant had been the landlord but shortly before serving the notice the defendant had assigned its interest in the property in question to its parent company and so had ceased to be the landlord. As section 25 required the landlord to serve the notice, the notice was held to be invalid.

Aldous J
[1990] 1 EGLR 261
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.187733

Bain and Co v Church Commissioners for England: ChD 1989

Section 89 does not apply to an order for possession made by the High Court, and an application for an adjournment of a possession order must be refused. The word ‘Court’ must be construed to refer to the County Court only: ‘possession of a dwelling house under a rental purchase agreement is a matter which prima facie would be a county court matter and I suspect is not a matter the High Court has ever had to consider.’ and ‘I confess to finding the point puzzling. I started, as I observed, with a disposition to sense that the ordinary jurisdiction cannot have been intended to be so radically altered and cut down so as to restrict every court in this country, including the other part of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, in its jurisdiction to limit orders for possession. I have no help from the text books which simply assume that the matter is a county court matter. I can, I think, take some help from the chapter heading to Part IV of the statute, and in the end, more by way of a bold leap in the dark than by way of reasoned proposition, I assert that ‘a court’ in section 89 means a county court.’

Harman J
[1989] 1 WLR 24, Independent 25-Jul-1988
Housing Act 1980 89
England and Wales
Cited by:
per incuriam – Hackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd QBD 14-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with . .
Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .
not preferred – Admiral Taverns (Cygnet Ltd) v Daly and Another CA 25-Nov-2008
The landlord appealed against a stay made on its suspended possession order by the High Court, saying that only the county court had such jurisdiction.
Held: ‘court’ in the section must mean any court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.185745

Garston v Scottish Widows’ Fund and Life Assurance Society: ChD 1996

A lease allowed a break clause to be exercised on six month’s notice. The notice given was calculated by reference to the wrong date, the date of the lease, and not the term contained in it.
Held: The mistake was not sufficiently clear to allow it to be remedied, despite the judge’s doubts on Hankey.

Rattee J
[1996] 1 WLR 834, [1996] 4 All ER 282
England and Wales
Citing:
Doubted – Hankey v Clavering CA 1942
A lease term ran for 21 years from 25 December 1934. A break clause gave either party the right to determine the lease at the expiration of the first seven years, by six calendar months’ notice. The landlord gave notice to the tenant’s solicitors in . .

Cited by:
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Appeal from – Garston and Others v Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society CA 25-Jun-1998
The lease demised property ‘from the 24th day of June 1985 for a term of twenty years’ with a break clause requiring six month’s notice. The break notice was mistakenly calculated from the anniversary of the lease, not the anniversary of the term. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.185095

Laura Investments v Havering: ChD 1992

The land was undeveloped when let to the tenant, who covenanted to build on it. On the rent review, the landlord contended that the rent should be calculated on the developed value, rather than in the condition as originally let.
Held: In the absence of anything in the lease to indicate otherwise, the presumption was that the rent should be reviewed on the basis of the condition of the property as at the date of the review (with the buildings), and not as at the date of the grant.

Hoffmann J
[1992] EGLR 155, [1992] CLY 2739, [1992] 24 EG 136
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Ponsford v HMS Aerosols 1978
. .
Applied – British Gas Corporation v Universities Superannuation Scheme ChD 1986
The lease had a five yearly rent review, to be the highest of the current rent the rack rental value at the relevant rate. The rack rent was calculated under a hypothetical lease containing the same provisions (save for rent). The tenant sought a . .
Considered – Ipswich Town Football Club v Ipswich Borough Council 1988
. .
Applied – Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Host Group Limited CA 1988
A lease of various buildings including a public house required the rent review to be carried out on the premise that the demise consisted of a bare site. The issue was whether the terms of the hypothetical letting and the valuation formula were to . .
Applied – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Park 1989
. .
Considered – Sheerness Steel Co v Medway Ports Authority 1992
. .

Cited by:
Applied – Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation v Next Plc Etc ChD 5-Dec-1995
Trade fixtures attached by a tenant will not usually add to rent on review. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.180701

Carradine Properties Ltd v Aslam: ChD 1976

Under a break clause in a lease, the relevant date upon which a notice given by either party under the clause might take effect was a date in September 1975, but the landlord’s notice in September 1974 specified a date in 1973. The date in 1973, had already passed and could not possibly have been intended by him. It must have been a clerical error, and could properly be read as intended to refer to 1975.
Held: The notice was effective to determine the lease on 27 September 1975. ‘In an option clause the requirement is that a party must strictly comply with the condition for its exercise. If the condition includes the giving of a particular notice, it seems to me that the logical first approach is to interpret the notice, looking at the words and applying legal principles to their construction, and then ask whether it complies with the strict requirements as to the exercise of the option . . a benevolent approach could be applied in this case . . because reasonably read by a reasonable tenant the mistake is obvious on the face of it, and there is no doubt what the mistake was. Therefore one interprets the notice as asserting an intention to determine in 1975. It is true that if whoever made the mistake had typed 1976 instead of 1973, the error would probably have been incurable because although the tenant might suspect there was a slip, it might be that the landlord did intend 1976, not knowing or understanding his rights under the lease. In such a case the tenant would be entitled to disregard the notice but because a past date was given in the notice it is insensible and therefore an authority such as the Duke of Bedford’s case is in point.’

Goulding J
[1976] 1 WLR 442, [1976] 1 All ER 573
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Doe d Duke of Bedford v Kightley 1796
The court could take a benevolent approach in construing a notice with a clerical error. . .
Distinguished – Hankey v Clavering CA 1942
A lease term ran for 21 years from 25 December 1934. A break clause gave either party the right to determine the lease at the expiration of the first seven years, by six calendar months’ notice. The landlord gave notice to the tenant’s solicitors in . .

Cited by:
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Preferred – Micrografix v Woking 8 Ltd ChD 1995
The tenants gave a notice determining the lease on 23 March 1995 when under the relevant clause they could only have done so on 23 June 1995. Jacob J. held that, as the landlords knew that the date of determination could only be 23 June 1995, they . .
Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Cited – Barclays Bank plc v Bee and Another CA 10-Jul-2001
The landlord’s solicitors, by mistake, sent two notices to the tenant in the same letter. One notice opposed the grant of a new tenancy but on an invalid ground, and the other said a new tenancy would not be opposed. The tenant sought clarification. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.185082

Charles Clements (London) Ltd v Rank City Wall: Chd 1978

When setting a rent on a lease renewal, taking into account other potential uses involves ignoring terms in the lease providing for only one use. Restrictions on use should not be relaxed solely to increase the rent, and conversely, the restrictions on use should not be tightened merely to reduce that rent.

Goulding J
[1978] 1 EGLR 47, [1978] 246 EG 739
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Northern Electric Plc v Addison CA 12-Jun-1997
The appellant challenged the terms of an order granting it a new lease under the Act. The landlord sought to have included an upwards only rent review. There was a ransom element since the plot was used as a base for an electricity sub-station which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.180630

Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc: CA 8 Dec 2009

The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard form prohibition against assignments or sub-letting. The defendants now appealed against a finding that they were in breach of the covenant against parting with possession, but not that against alienation.
Held: The appeal succeeded. NatWest did not, by entering into the virtual assignment share possession or part with possession of the demised premises or any part of it. ‘New Liberty does not, when it collects rent as agent of NatWest, receive that rent itself in the sense of putting it into possession of the demised premises. Nor, prior to collection, does it have the right to receive rent in that sense.’
The virtual assignment was neither a form of trust, but rather purely contractual: ‘virtual assignments are strange new beasts in the forest; that one must circle around them suspiciously and cautiously; but the moment one gets close and has a good sniff, the overwhelming smell is of contract, not of trust.’
The lease explicitly proscribed several forms of alienation. The use of a list suggested that forms of alienation not listed were not prohibited. The form used was not listed.

Ward LJ, Jacob LJ, Warren LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1311
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 205(1)(xix)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lyell v Kennedy HL 1-Aug-1889
The true owner may recover money which was rightfully his from a person to whom the money in question had been wrongly paid by the collector of the money. A fiduciary is one who has undertaken, whether on request or without request, of his own . .
Appeal From – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 23-Jan-2009
The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Abbey National Plc CA 29-Jun-2006
The court considered the effect in VAT on a ‘virtual assignment’ of a lease. . .
Cited – Akici v LR Butlin Ltd CA 2-Nov-2005
The tenant appealed against forfeiture of his lease for breach of a qualified covenant against assignment. It was said that the tenant had attempted to hide from the landlord the assignment of the premises to his company or its shared occupation. . .
Cited – Mirror Group plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Cantor Fitzgerald International v Same ECJ 9-Oct-2001
A potential lessee who did not have an interest in immovable property agreed to take a lease in return for money paid by the landlord. The transaction was not exempt from value-added tax under article 13(B)(b) as ‘the leasing or letting of immovable . .
Cited – Stening v Abrahams ChD 1931
The landlord complained that the tenant was in breach of his covenant not to part with possession of any part of the premises where the tenant had so organised things that he had effectively excluded himself from part of the demised premises.
Cited – Lam Kee Ying Sdn. Bhd v Lam Shes Tong PC 1975
The Board considered an alleged breach of a covenant against assignment in a lease.
Held: The transfer to a newly formed company of the partnership business being conducted on the premises was a parting with possession. ‘A covenant which . .
Cited – Kataria v Safeland Plc CA 4-Nov-1997
A landlord retained the right to forfeit a lease for non-payment of rent even though had re-assigned the benefit of the arrears to the previous landlord on the purchase. A landlord may assign the right to receive the rent without assigning the . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton; Longmire; Stoddard; Maile and Persons Unknown CA 4-Mar-1999
The claimant wished to construct a new runway on its own land, and it was necessary to carry out works, namely, that trees on nearby land should be lopped or felled so that they would not constitute an obstruction to the flight path. The claimant . .
Cited – Saunders v Vautier 7-May-1841
A direction in a will stated that the income from certain shares was to be accumulated and invested until the beneficiary attained the age of 25. On attaining his majority at 21 years, the beneficiary sought termination of the trust, and transfer of . .
Cited – Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
Cited – Richards v Delbridge CA 16-Apr-1874
The donor purported to make a voluntary gift of leasehold premises and stock in trade by endorsing on the lease ‘This deed and all thereto belonging I give to E from this time forth, and all the stock in trade.’ This document was delivered to E’s . .
Cited – Howard v Miller 1915
The trusteeship which arises as between a vendor and purchaser of land depends on the availability of specific performance. Lord Parker of Waddington said: ‘It is sometimes said that under a contract for the sale of an interest in land the vendor . .
Cited – Gentle v Faulkner CA 1900
A declaration of trust of a lease had been executed by the tenant. The landlord complained that this was a breach of the covenant against assignment.
Held: In the absence of any context showing that the covenant is to have an extended meaning, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.383666

Edwards v Kumarasamy: SC 13 Jul 2016

The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties acknowledged that section 11 of the 1985 Act could not be set aside by the contract.
Held: The Landlord’s appeal was allowed: ‘although he had a sufficient ‘interest’ in the front hallway and paved area for the purposes of section 11(1A)(a), Mr Kumarasamy was not liable for the disrepair which caused Mr Edwards’s injury, as (i) he could only be liable if the paved area was ‘part of the exterior of the front hall’ and it was not, and (ii) he could only be liable if he had had notice of the disrepair before the accident and he did not.’
Lord Neuberger said: ‘the repairing covenant implied by section 11 is to be interpreted and applied in precisely the same way as a landlord’s contractual repairing covenant. As I have sought to explain, the rule in relation to such covenants is that, until he has notice of disrepair, a landlord should not normally be liable for disrepair of property in so far as it is in the possession of the tenant. I can see no basis as a matter of principle for departing from the rule when it comes to covenants implied by section 11, which is what Dowding and Reynolds suggest. And, as a matter of practicality, once one departs from the clear rule, there is a real risk of uncertainty and confusion – for instance, it could be difficult to resolve whether, on particular facts, it is more likely that the tenant or the landlord should have noticed the disrepair.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2016] UKSC 40, UKSC 2015/0095, [2016] WLR (D) 385, [2017] 1 P and CR 2, [2016] AC 1334, [2016] 3 WLR 310, [2016] HLR 32, [2016] L and TR 25
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC Video am, SC Video pm, WLRD
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11, Law of Property Act 1925 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Niazi Services Ltd v Johannes Marinus Henricus Van Der Loo CA 10-Feb-2004
The tenant counterclaimed an action by the landlord for rent saying the property had not been repaired under the landlord’s covenant. The water supply had for 33 months been weak, leading to only a trickle of water being available, and there had . .
Appeal from – Edwards v Kumarasamy CA 28-Jan-2015
The claimant was tenant of the defendant under an assured shorthold tenancy. He had tripped injuring himself on a pathway between the front doorway of the block of flats and the rubbish bins. The defendant held the flat himself as a tenant under a . .
Wrongly decided – Brown v Liverpool Corpn CA 1969
The premises at issue consisted of a terraced house to which access was obtained from the street through a gate, down some steps and along a two metre path which led to the front door of the house.
Held: The steps were part of the exterior of . .
Cited – Campden Hill Towers v Gardner CA 1977
A flat was let by an underlease for seven years. The lease excluded the outside walls of the flat, but the tenant covenanted to pay for repairs to the building through a service charge. The tenant refused to pay the service charge which included the . .
Approved – Hopwood v Cannock Chase District Council CA 1975
. .
Cited – Moore v Clark 5-Jul-1813
If the Plaintiff declares on a general covenant to repair a messuage, and assigns a breach, per quod he was put to expence, it is sufficient for a tenant to plead performance as to all except as to the repairs of a party-wall, and that those repairs . .
Cited – Makin v Watkinson 1870
The court considered the extent of a Landlord’s duty of repair where he had entered into an express covenant for the purpose. . .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Cited – Murphy v Hurly HL 1922
Consequences of a defect in the repair of a sea wall possession of which had been retained by the landlord. The House considered the rule that a landlord is not liable under a covenant with his tenant to repair premises which are in the possession . .
Cited – Tredway v Machin CA 1922
. .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc v Sun Life Assurance Society Plc CA 3-Aug-1995
A landlord became in breach of his duty of repair under his covenant immediately the repairable defect occurred, not after a reasonable time had been given to make the repair. Nourse LJ summarised the earlier authorities: ‘It is now established by a . .
Cited – Vyse v Wakefield 1840
The declaration stated, that, by indenture, the defendant covenanted that he would, at any time or times thereafter, appear at an office or offices for the insurance of lives within London, or the bills of mortality, and answer such questions as . .
Cited – Morgan v Liverpool Corporation CA 1927
The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the . .
Cited – McCarrick v Liverpool Corporation HL 1947
Premises’ Defect – No Notice Liability on L
The tenant’s wife was injured falling from defective stone steps leading from the kitchen to the back kitchen of the house. Under section the 1936 Act, the judge found the house not to have been kept in the state required. No notice of want of . .
Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566879