Category: Landlord and Tenant

Rowntree Ventures Ltd and Another v Oak Property Partners Ltd and Another: ChD 10 Jun 2016

The companies had adopted a business model of acquiring hotel properties and selling off accomodation through leases covenanting to buy them back if requested. Both had fallen into financial diffculties, and administrators were sought.

Purle QC HHJ
[2016] EWHC 1523 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566754

Secretary of State for Defence v Nicholas: ChD 24 Aug 2015

Application to set aside an order granting the Secretary of State for Defence, the claimants in these proceedings, permission to issue a written possession.

Rose J
[2015] EWHC 4064 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Niholas v Secretary of State for Defence ChD 1-Aug-2013
The claimant had been the wife of a military officer, and occupied a property licensed to him by the defendant. They divorced and he left, and she now resisted grant of possession to the defendant.
Held: The claimant failed. However, there was . .
See Also – Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Armed Forces

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566761

Rossdale v Denny: CA 1921

The plaintiff offered in writing to purchase a leasehold house, but the letter was to take effect ‘on signing of a formal contract’ and ‘This offer is subject to a formal contract to embody such reasonable provisions as my solicitors may approve’. The offer was accepted, but the defendant backed out.
Held: No formal contract was created.
L Sterndale said: ‘I am far from saying that there may not be an unconditional offer and acceptance of a binding contract although the letters may contain the words ‘subject to a formal contract’, but certainly those words do point in the direction of the offer or acceptance being conditional. I do not think it can be put higher than that; I think he is well founded in saying that the general trend of the decisions has been, where those words occurred, to hold that the offer or acceptance was conditional.’

LJ Sterndale, Sargant LJ
[1921] 90 LJ Ch 204, [1921] 1 Ch 57, [1921] 124 LTR 294, [1921] 37 TLR 45, [1921] 65 Sol Jo 59
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Winn v Bull ChD 19-Nov-1877
By an agreement in writing, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to take a lease of a house. The other details were included, but the agreement was ‘subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract’. The plaintiff sought specific . .

Cited by:
Cited – Confetti Records (A Firm), Fundamental Records, Andrew Alcee v Warner Music UK Ltd (Trading As East West Records) ChD 23-May-2003
An agreement was made for the assignment of the copyright in a music track, but it remained ‘subject to contract’. The assignor later sought to resile from the assignment.
Held: It is standard practice in the music licensing business for a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.183732

Hutchison and others v B and DF Ltd: ChD 3 Oct 2008

The claimants sought an order declaring that the defendant had a tenancy and requiring it to execute an appropriate lease. The landlords said that the tenant had a continuation lease under the 1954 renewal procedure, and the tenants said they had only a tenancy at will.

Peter Smith J
[2008] EWHC 2286 (Ch)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25 27
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rossiter v Miller 1873
There is no significance in the fact that a formal written agreement, whether executed or not, is in different terms to the oral discussions leading up to it, subject of course to the appropriate authority of those who have executed it.
Lord . .
Cited – Winn v Bull ChD 19-Nov-1877
By an agreement in writing, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to take a lease of a house. The other details were included, but the agreement was ‘subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract’. The plaintiff sought specific . .
Cited – Branca v Cabarro CA 1947
The fact that the parties might contemplate the possibility of a further written agreement, does not prevent an original agreement being effective as a contract. . .
Cited – London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Another ChD 1-Mar-2001
. .
Cited – London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Others CA 22-Mar-2002
TBI was a property investor and developer with several subsidiaries. It agreed to sell some to London and Regional. The agreement provided for the vendor and the purchaser to use reasonable endeavours to agree the terms of a joint venture agreement . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.276681

Winn v Bull: ChD 19 Nov 1877

By an agreement in writing, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to take a lease of a house. The other details were included, but the agreement was ‘subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract’. The plaintiff sought specific performance.
Held: The words ‘subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract’ in a document prevented the document from being held to be a final agreement of which specific performance could be enforced.
Sir George Jessel MR said: ‘It comes, therefore, to this, that where you have a proposal or agreement made in writing expressed to be subject to a formal contract being prepared, it means what it says; it is subject to and is dependent upon a formal contract being prepared. When it is not expressly stated to be subject to a formal contract it becomes a question of construction, whether the parties intended that the terms agreed on should merely be put into form, or whether they should be subject to a new agreement the terms of which are not expressed in detail’

Sir George Jessel MR
(1877) 7 Ch D 29, 47 LJ Ch 139, 42 JP 230, 26 WR 230, (1877-1878) 7 ChD 29, [1877] UKLawRpCh 283
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Followed – Rossdale v Denny CA 1921
The plaintiff offered in writing to purchase a leasehold house, but the letter was to take effect ‘on signing of a formal contract’ and ‘This offer is subject to a formal contract to embody such reasonable provisions as my solicitors may approve’. . .
Cited – Confetti Records (A Firm), Fundamental Records, Andrew Alcee v Warner Music UK Ltd (Trading As East West Records) ChD 23-May-2003
An agreement was made for the assignment of the copyright in a music track, but it remained ‘subject to contract’. The assignor later sought to resile from the assignment.
Held: It is standard practice in the music licensing business for a . .
Cited – Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA ChD 7-Apr-2006
The parties were in dispute. The now respondent threatened winding up. The appellant had someone in his company send an email requesting an adjournment and apparently giving a personal guarantee to a certain amount. The application was adjourned, . .
Cited – Hutchison and others v B and DF Ltd ChD 3-Oct-2008
The claimants sought an order declaring that the defendant had a tenancy and requiring it to execute an appropriate lease. The landlords said that the tenant had a continuation lease under the 1954 renewal procedure, and the tenants said they had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.183731

Ramsden v Dyson: HL 11 May 1866

The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their own money in building on the strength of assurances, said to have been given to them by the landowner’s agent, that they would never be disturbed.
Held: The decision was overturned. The difference of opinion was over an issue of fact, that is the substance of what was said on the occasion when some tenants agreed to be tenants at lower rents than were being paid by other tenants of Sir John Ramsden.
Lord Kingsdown, dissenting on the facts, said: ‘The rule of law applicable to the case appears to me to be this; if a man, under a verbal agreement with a landlord for a certain interest in land, or what amounts to the same thing, under an expectation, created or encouraged by the landlord, that he shall have a certain interest, takes possession of such land, with the consent of the landlord, and upon the faith of such promise or expectation, with the knowledge of the landlord, and without objection by him, lays out money upon the land, a Court of equity will compel the landlord to give effect to such promise or expectation. This was the principle of the decision in Gregory v. Mighell 18 Ves. 328, and, as I conceive, is open to no doubt.’ Even if there were uncertainty as to the terms of the contract, a court of equity could nevertheless interfere in order to prevent fraud but that it was unclear what, in that case, the remedy should be. The choices were between the grant of a specific interest in the land and the grant of a restitutionary remedy such as monetary compensation.
Lord Cranworth LC said: ‘If any one makes an assurance to another, with or without consideration, that he will do or will abstain from doing a particular act, but he refuses to bind himself, and says that for the performance of what he has promised the person to whom the promise has been made must rely on the honour of the person who has made it, this excludes the jurisdiction of Courts of equity no less than of Courts of law.’

Lord Cranworth LC, Lord Wensleydale and Lord Westbury, Lord Kingsdown dissenting
[1866] LR 1 HL 129, [1866] 12 Jur NS 506, [1866] UKLawRpHL 7
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Cited – Gonthier and Another v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA 25-Jun-2003
The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . .
Cited – Holiday Inns Inc v Broadhead 1974
The parties negotiated for a lease, but never signed a contract. The plaintiff expended considerable sums to try to get planning, and once acquired it sought to buy the land, and claimed that Mr Broadhead had taken an unconscionable advantage, . .
Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Principles for Proprietary Estoppel
A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
Criticised – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
Followed – Inwards v Baker CA 13-Jan-1965
An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
Held: The court formulated the . .
Cited – Willmott v Barber ChD 19-Jun-1880
In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .
Cited – Strover and Another v Strover and Another ChD 10-May-2005
Insurance policies had been taken out by the partners in a firm. The surviving family of one and the remaining partners contested ownership. The policy was held in part for the benefit of the family. The premiums had been paid from partnership . .
Cited – Vehicles and Supplies Ltd and others v Financial Institutions Services Ltd PC 28-Jun-2005
(Jamaica) Parties had entered into a joint venture, before one fell into severe financial difficulties. A scheme of arrangement was proposed in which plots which were part of the development would be apportioned, but steps were not taken to complete . .
Cited – Uglow v Uglow and others CA 27-Jul-2004
The deceased had in 1976 made a promise to the claimant. The promise was not honoured in the will, and the claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel.
Held: The judge was right to have found that the promise was bound up with the claimant being . .
Cited – Thorner v Curtis and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant said that the deceased, his father and a farmer, had made representations to him over many years that if the claimant continued to work on the farm, he would leave the farm to him in his will. He died intestate. He claimed a proprietary . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Cited – Thorner v Major and others CA 2-Jul-2008
The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
Held: . .
Cited – Thorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
Cited – Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another CA 22-May-1978
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion
The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Leading Case

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.188171

Cowthorpe Road 1-1A Freehold Ltd v Wahedally: 2017

The court considered a lessor’s counter-notice served under s.21 of the 1993 Act. HH Judge Dight had to construe s.99(1) of the 1993 Act which provides:
‘(1) Any notice required or authorised to be given under this Part –
(a) shall be in writing; and
(b) may be sent by post.’
Held: The use of the word ‘may’ in subsection (b) meant that the section was permissive but that the requirement that the notice should be in writing excluded service by e-mail. Much of his reasoning turned on the fact that s.13 of the 1993 Act requires a notice to be signed which the judge held indicated that what had to be served was the original and not a copy document. This was, he said, sufficient to evince a contrary intention so as to exclude the definition of ‘writing’ in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act which includes: ‘typing, printing, lithography, photography and other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form . . ‘.

HH Judge Dight
[2017] L and TR 4
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 21
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.655046

Balkhi v Southern Land Securities Ltd: UTLC 18 May 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – building with residential use of upper parts and commercial use below – landlord holding headlease of upper parts (so far as non-structural) from freeholder – headlease requiring landlord to contribute to a freeholder’s sinking fund – landlord’s ability to recover such contributions from tenant – reasonableness of amounts claimed

[2016] UKUT 239 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565803

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Wisbey: UTLC 12 May 2016

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT- Costs incurred in connection with new lease to be paid by the tenant – Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.60 – whether recoverable costs include solicitors’ fees in relation to landlord’s counter-notice and instructing a valuer – consideration of possibility of landlord negotiating a quantum discount with solicitor where numerous lease extensions contemplated

[2016] UKUT 203 (LC)
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 60
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565804

Moorjani v Durban Estates Ltd: CA 4 Dec 2015

The court was asked whether the lessee under a long lease of a residential flat can claim to have suffered loss arising from a period of disrepair affecting both the flat and the common parts in the building attributable to the lessor’s breach of its obligations to the lessee if, during that period, and for reasons unconnected with the disrepair, the lessee chooses to live elsewhere, leaving the flat vacant.

Longmore, Briggs, King LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1252, [2016] 1 WLR 2265
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565663

Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corporation and Another: ChD 10 May 2016

‘This action raises in an acute form the conflict between a landlords’s right to build reserved to it in a lease and the tenant’s right to enjoy the demised premises pursuant to the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment contained in the lease and/or the landlord’s implied covenant not to derogate from the grant.’

Alan Steinfeld QC DHCJ
[2016] EWHC 1075 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564974

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 1978 Act. Such an implication did not infringe the tenant’s human rights. Lex Services stood alone against a list of cases to the effect that where a notice was sent by one of the primary methods set down in s23, it was deemed to have been served, and s7 had no application.

Peter Gibson and Longmore LJJ
Times 05-Aug-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 320, [2003] EWCA Civ 1167
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 23, Limitation Act 1978 7, Human Rights Act 1998, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25
England and Wales
Citing:
Per incuriam – Lex Services plc v Johns 1990
The section in the earlier Act was modified to give effect to the 1978 Act. . .
Cited – Sun Alliance and London Assurance Ltd v Hayman 1975
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Italica Holdings SA v Bayadea 1985
. .
Applied – Galinski v McHugh 5-Oct-1988
A landlord’s notice under section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 had been served on the tenant’s solicitors, who had confirmed that they had authority to accept service. Later the tenant challenged the validity of the service.
Held: . .
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 . .
Cited – Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Moustafa 1999
A landlord gave notice to the original lessees of business premises, under section 17 of the 1995 Act. It was sent by recorded delivery to the lessees’ last known residential address but was returned to the sender by the Royal Mail. Nevertheless the . .
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 . .
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 by:
Cited – Freetown v Assethold Ltd CA 14-Dec-2012
A party to an arbitration under the 1996 Act disputed whether the award had been served so as to leave that party out of time to appeal.
Rix LJ spoke of the common law as requiring proof of receipt, whereas the Interpretation Act deemed receipt . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.185687

Ferries v Viscountess Cowdray: HL 27 Jan 1919

The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1908 enacts-Section 10-‘Where ( a) the landlord of a holding, without, good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, terminates the tenancy by notice to quit . . the tenant upon quitting the holding shall . . be entitled to compensation . . provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable . . ( b) unless the tenant has, within two months after he has received notice to quit . . given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation under this section. . . In the event of any difference arising as to any matter under this section, the difference shall in default of agreement be settled by arbitration. . . ‘ Section 18 (1)-‘Notwithstanding the expiration of the stipulated endurance of any lease the tenancy shall not come to an end unless written notice has been given by either party to the other of his intention to bring the tenancy to an end-( a) in the case of leases for three years and upwards not less than one year nor more than two years before the termination of the lease.’
The lease of a farm for nineteen years provided that-‘notice in writing to quit shall be given on either side two years before the expiry of the lease.’ The lease expired at Whitsunday 1917. On 13th May 1917, the landlord gave notice to quit to the tenant, who acknowledged the notice, and on 30th July intimated in writing that he intended to claim compensation for unreasonable disturbance. Certain negotiations followed, and the tenant subsequently secured the services of an arbiter to assess the compensation. Questions then arose as to the validity of the notice to quit and the sufficiency of the notice of claim. The landlord having raised an action of suspension and interdict to suspend the proceedings for the appointment of the arbiter, and to interdict him and the tenant from proceeding with the application, held ( rev. judgment of the First Division, dub. Lord Finlay) that the arbiter had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the landlord’s notice to quit and of the tenant’s notice of claim.

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Finlay, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Atkinson
[1919] UKHL 220, 56 SLR 220
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.632766

Kerr v Bryde: HL 3 Nov 1922

A house was let on 28th August 1916 for a period of one month at the standard rent within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Acts, and the tenancy was thereafter from time to time renewed by tacit relocation. On 27th July 1920 and subsequent dates the landlord served on the tenant the statutory notice under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 of his intention to increase the rent, but did not serve a notice of removal. The tenant paid the increased rent for a time and then got into arrears. In an action by the landlord for recovery of the arrears, held ( aff. the judgment of the First Division, Lords Dunedin and Wrenbury diss.) that in the absence of notice terminating the tenancy the period in respect of which the increased rent was demanded was not a ‘period during which but for this Act the landlord would be entitled to obtain possession,’ and that accordingly the increase of rent had not been authorised by the Act.

Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Sumner, Wrenbury, and Carson
[1922] UKHL 575, 59 SLR 575
Bailii
Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.632809

Sheffield City Council v Oliver: CA 4 Apr 2017

The issue in this appeal is whether, when quantifying a service charge payable by a lessee under a long lease of residential property, credit must be given by the lessor in respect of a third party contribution towards the cost of carrying out repairs and improvements to the property, so as to avoid any element of double recovery by the lessor.

Longmore, Lewison, Briggs LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 225
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Robinson (Formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 13-Mar-2019
Statutory right of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse protection claims and human rights claims under Part 5 of the 2002 Act. Where a person has already had a human rights claim refused and there is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.581346

The Trustees of The Sloane Stanley Estate v Mundy: UTLC 10 May 2016

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – premium payable in respect of new lease – three separate cases – freehold vacant possession value agreed in one case – decision as to freehold vacant possession values in the other two cases – the value of the existing leases with rights under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – ‘real world relativity’ – the Savills 2002 enfranchisable graph – the value of the existing leases without rights under the 1993 Act – hedonic regression – the Parthenia model rejected – the deduction to be made to reflect the absence of rights under the 1993 Act – other graphs of relativity for leases without rights under the 1993 Act – the resulting values – future cases – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, sch. 13, Part II

[2016] UKUT 223 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564152

Summers v Salford Corporation: HL 1943

The tenant had given notice to the landlord’s agent that a sash-cord in the only window of a bedroom had broken. No repair was effected and about two months later the second sash-cord broke injuring the tenant. The House was asked whether there was a breach by the landlords of the implied undertaking in the Act, that the house would be kept by the landlord during the tenancy in all respects fit for human habitation.
Held: Lord Atkin said: ‘In the present case the point on which the Court of Appeal in Morgans case decided for the defendant does not arise, namely, that notice of the lack of repair complained of must be given to the landlord before his statutory obligation arises. I can see that different considerations may arise in the case of an obligation to repair imposed in the public interest, and I think that this question must be left open, and I reserve to myself the right to reconsider my former decision if the necessity arises.’

Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Wright, Lord Romer
[1943] AC 283
Housing Act 1936 2(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
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, Housing

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.221532