Category: Landlord and Tenant

Potts v Densley and Another: QBD 6 May 2011

The claimant had been a shorthold tenant. The landlord had failed to secure the deposit as required, but offered to repay it after the determination of the tenancy. The claimant now appealed against a refusal of an award of three times the deposit.
Held: The appeal failed. Sharp J said: ‘section 214(4) is mandatory in that once a finding has been made that a deposit has not been secured in accordance with the Act, or that the prescribed information has not been provided (and in either case, the relevant date for that determination is the date of the hearing of the section 214(4) application, as Tiensia has decided) there is no discretion to refuse to make an order for the payment of three times the deposit sum under section 214(4).’
However, though at the time in question, the parties were no longer as such landlord and tenant, other parts of the Act continued that description after the tenancy ended, and ‘ . . a party’s position as ‘the landlord’ or ‘the tenant’ for the purposes of these provisions crystallises when a deposit is paid in connection with shorthold tenancy. Thereafter, ‘the landlord’ (i.e. the person receiving the deposit paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy) continues to be ‘the landlord’ for the purposes of the statute whether the tenancy has been determined or not and remains under a continuing obligation to comply with the initial requirements of the scheme and to provide the prescribed information. Moreover, it remains the case that the landlord will still be subject to sanction if he has not complied with the initial requirements of the scheme or provided the prescribed information by the time of hearing of the section 214(4) application (following Tiensia). I recognise this has the considerable disadvantage that the landlord might then not protect the deposit during the tenancy itself as I have indicated; but at least then he can be pursued thereafter by ‘the tenant’ and subject to sanction in the event he is unable . . to protect the deposit appropriately before the hearing.’
and ‘It therefore follows that subject to the second ground of appeal, the judge’s decision should be upheld on the ground that the Respondents had until the date of the hearing of the Appellant’s section 214(4) application to comply with the provisions of section 213(3); and having secured the deposit before the hearing, albeit after the determination of the tenancy, they had a complete defence to the section 214(4) claim.’

Sharp J
[2011] EWHC 1144 (QB), [2010] 3 All ER 411
Bailii
The Housing (Tenancy Deposits) (Prescribed Information) Order 2007, Housing Act 2004 213 214
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Draycott and Another v Hannells Letting Ltd (T/A Hannells Letting Agents) QBD 12-Feb-2010
The landlord’s agent did not place the tenant’s deposit with an authorised scheme or provide the appropriate notice within the 14 days required by the 2004 Act. T sought a penalty after it had been deposited. L said that the deposit penalty could no . .
Cited – Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates) CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later . .

Cited by:
Approved – Suurpere v Nice and Another QBD 27-Jul-2011
The tenant appealed against refusal of her claim for damages under sections 213 and 214 of the 2004 Act, saying that the notice as to the protection of her deposit had been inadequate on the grant of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to her.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.434900

Robot Arenas Ltd and Another v Waterfield and Another: QBD 8 Feb 2010

The tenant company had defaulted under the lease, and the landlord had retaken possession. The landlord discarded the tenant’s possessions, and the tenant now sued, saying that the landlords as involuntary bailees owed duties to the proper owner.
Held: In the context of commercial goods, the purpose of which is to earn profit, the assessment of what the Claimant has lost and of the damages that would be reasonable as between the Claimant and the Defendant must take into account the commercial usefulness of the goods to the Claimant. If the reality is that what was destroyed was commercially useless to the Claimant, that cannot be ignored in the assessment of damages.
The defendants had not discharged the burden on them of proving abandonment. Liability was not strict, and it had to be shown that the defendants knew or ought to have known that the goods belonged to a third party. That could not be shown in this particular case, and the claim failed.

Edelman QC J
[2010] EWHC 115 (QB)
Bailii
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – AVX v EGM Solders Ltd QBD 1-Jul-1982
The defendants had agreed to the return of defective spheres of solder which they had manufactured for the plaintiffs. By mistake, as well as returning the defective solder in one box, the plaintiffs returned twenty-one boxes of capacitors which . .
Cited – Marcq v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd CA 23-May-2003
The claimant’s stolen painting was put up for sale by the defendant. On being withdrawn, they returned it to the person who had brought it in. The claimant sought damages.
Held: There was no reported case in which a court has had to consider . .
Cited – The Harmonides 1903
The measure of damages for the loss of a profitable ship is to include its economic value: ‘So that the real test, where there is no market is, as counsel on both sides agree, what is the value to the owners as a going concern, at the time the . .
Cited – Voaden v Champion ( ‘Baltic Surveyor’ ) CA 31-Jan-2002
The ‘Baltic Surveyor’ was lost at its moorings in a storm. A neighbouring ship had been negligently secured, and freed itself and sank the Baltic Surveyor. The owner appealed findings as to the value of the boat, and securing pontoon. She asserted . .
Cited – The Harmonides 1903
The measure of damages for the loss of a profitable ship is to include its economic value: ‘So that the real test, where there is no market is, as counsel on both sides agree, what is the value to the owners as a going concern, at the time the . .
Cited – Sealce Shipping Company Limited v Oceanvoice Limited CA 1991
The parties contracted for the sale of a ship, including a spare propeller. When the ship was delivered there was no spare propeller. It was common ground that there was no market for second-hand propellers. So the only way of providing a spare . .
Cited – Dominion Mosaics Limited v Trafalgar Trucking Co Limited CA 1990
The claimant’s building was destroyed by fire as a result of the defendant’s negligence. It was impracticable to rebuild and so, to keep its business going the claimant bought a 36 year lease of another building with 20% more floor space. In the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agency, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.401924

Padwick Properties Ltd v Punj Lloyd Ltd: ChD 9 Mar 2016

The tenant had left the property, their solicitors writing informing the landlord that it had vacated the Property and asserting that ‘the security and safety of the Property will revert to your client.’ The keys were returned, and on the insolvency of the tenant, the lease was disclaimed. The landlord then required the defendant, under the guarantee to pay arrears, and enter into a new lease.
Held: There had been no surrender of the lease. The landlord’s agent had been clear that in accepting the key he did so for security and not by way of retaking possession.

Keyser QC HHJ
[2016] EWHC 502 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Oastler v Henderson 1877
The tenancy was for seven years. Shortly after its creation, the tenant left the keys with the agent and asked him to dispose of it or make the best bargain for surrender he could, and left for America. A tenant not being found, the agent returned . .
Cited – Relvok Properties Ltd v Dixon CA 1972
A lease was assigned to a Mr Krokidis who then departed. The landlords instructed Estate Agents to change the locks. The defendants said that that amounted to a surrender of the lease.
Held: They were wrong: ‘In my judgment Judge Irving . .
Cited – Evans v James (Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Hopkin Deceased) CA 5-Jul-1999
Before the parties called evidence, and having read the papers, the court considered that there was no real defence shown, and invited submissions. Negotiations for the grant of a tenancy had been terminated by the sudden illness of the proposed . .
Cited – Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
Cited – Artworld Financial Corporation v Safaryan and Others CA 27-Feb-2009
The parties disputed whether the landlord had accepted the surrender of a lease. The tenant had handed in the keys. The landlord claimed rent for the subsequent period. The court had found surrender by operation of law, the landlord taking several . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560749

The Earl of Abercorn v Andrew Wallace of Woolmet, Esq, Ws: HL 25 Jan 1764

Lease of Coal – Clause as to Level. – Held, that a clause in a lease of coal, by which it was agreed that either party was to have the power of communicating the level of the said coal to any neighbouring coal works, did not cease or determine with the lease, but continued so long as the lessee continued to possess a right and interest in the neighbouring coal-work.

[1764] UKHL 6 – Paton – 757, (1764) 6 Paton 757
Bailii

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560631

Captain James Frazer of Belladrum v His Majesty’s Advocate: HL 30 Mar 1762

Lease – Duration – Powers.-
A lease was granted for 1140 years for a valuable consideration given, besides a yearly tack duty. Sasine and possession followed: Held, on the forfeiture of the estate, that the lease was good against the granter, and also against the crown, reversing the judgment of the Court of Session.

[1762] UKHL 2 – Paton – 66, (1762) 2 Paton 66
Bailii
Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560599

Triplerose Ltd Re Forth Banks Tower: UTLC 11 Feb 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – RIGHT TO MANAGE – costs incurred in consequence of a claim notice — indemnity principle – whether applicable – if applicable whether evidence sufficient to show principle complied with – section 88, (4) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 77 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560317

T Hilling and Co Ltd Re Tixley, Hookstone Lane: UTLC 5 Feb 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – RENT DETERMINATION – jurisdiction of First-tier Tribunal on consideration of objection to rent registered by rent officer – Sch.11, Rent Act 1977 – Art. 2(7), Rent Act (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 – sufficiency of reasons – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 60 (LC)
Bailii
Rent Act 1977
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560316

Avon Ground Rents Ltd v 51 Earls Court Square RTM Company Ltd: UTLC 14 Jan 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – RIGHT TO MANAGE – description of premises in company’s articles of association – whether a self-contained building – whether an RTM company – interpretation of articles – Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 22 (LC)
Bailii
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Company

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560308

Raja v Aviram: UTLC 23 Feb 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – BREACH OF COVENANT – covenant against cutting wall without landlord’s consent – holes cut by contractor to enable new boiler to be installed – relevance of tenant’s knowledge – relevance of landlord’s failure to provide contact address – section 168(4), Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – appeal allowed

[2016] UKUT 102 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560314

Gateway Property Holdings Ltd v Ross Wharf RTM Company Ltd: UTLC 29 Feb 2016

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – RIGHT TO MANAGE – address for service of claim notice – whether address notified to RTM company – whether superseded by address on subsequent service charge demands given to company members – consequence of failure to serve claim notice at correct address – section 111(4), Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – section 48, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKUT 97 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560312

The Gulf Agencies Ltd v Ahmed: CA 3 Feb 2016

The appellant is the landlord of business premises. The tenant, the respondent to this appeal, brought proceedings under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 for the grant of a new tenancy. The landlord resisted the application on the ground set out in section 30(1)(g), that he intended to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business to be carried on by him at the premises.

Gloster, King, David Richards LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 44
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559507

Little v Courage Ltd: CA 6 Jan 1995

The tenancy contained an option for the tenant to renew, subject to agreement being reached with the brewer on a business plan. The tenant said he wished to renew, but the brewer did not present a business plan or agreement, and then the landlord refused to grant a new lease, saying that no new plan or agreement had been entered into.
Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. The renewal of the lease under the covenant was enforced against the Landlord, despite the failure of the condition precedent. The brewer’s refusal to agree a plan did not allow the Landlord to refuse a new lease. The lease should be read so as to make the plan and agreement a condition, only if one was offered by the brewer. Under that reading, the landlord would not be entitled to refuse to renew the lease.

Ind Summary 06-Feb-1995, Times 06-Jan-1995, (1994) 70 P and CR 469
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Little v Courage Ltd ChD 19-Jan-1994
The pub tenant had an option to renew his lease, subject to agreeing with the brewer a business plan and agreement. He notified the landlord that he wished to renew but the landlord did not himself present any plan and agreement, or obtain one, but . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wells v Devani SC 13-Feb-2019
Mr W was selling apartments in a block of flats. Mr D, an estate agent, sought commission. W argued that D had not had signed his terms, and that therefore no contract existed. The court considered whether a contract had come into being when a major . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.83093

Geyfords Ltd v O’Sullivan and Others: UTLC 17 Dec 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Service Charges – whether landlord’s costs of proceedings in the county court to recover arrears of service charge, and in responding to tenants’ application to the LVT to quantify service charges are recoverable as expenses incurred in ‘proper and convenient management and running of the development’ – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKUT 683 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558936

Silk Tree Properties Ltd v Grant and Others: UTLC 16 Dec 2015

UTLC MOBILE HOMES -construction of agreements — costs — application by occupiers to First-tier Tribunal for determination whether certain sewerage charges were payable pursuant to their agreements — F-tT finding in favour of site owners — question arising as to whether the agreements on their proper construction entitled site owners to recover from occupiers the costs incurred in relation to the proceedings before F-tT

[2015] UKUT 686 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558937