Category: Landlord and Tenant

Freeman v Jeffries: CExC 1868

(Court of Exchequer) The incoming tenant plaintiff had agreed to buy the outgoing tenant’s interest in a farm at a price determined by two valuers. He paid pounds 2,000 on account; the valuation took place; the plaintiff gave to the outgoing tenant a post-dated promissory note for pounds 3,319, being the amount of the valuation (after deducting the pounds 2,000 paid on account); and the plaintiff entered into possession. Later, when he sold his interest in the farm to a third party, he claimed to have discovered errors in the valuation in respect of the inclusion of items that ought not to have been included, and items that did not exist. Nevertheless, he paid the promissory note at maturity without objection, but later, without any prior complaint or demand for repayment, he sued the defendant, claiming as moneys had and received to his use the whole price paid, namely pounds 5,319; alternatively, the deposit of pounds 2,000; alternatively, the remaining pounds 3,319; or, alternatively, an undefined sum that a jury should find to be the value of the items that ought not to have been included in the valuation.
Held: He was not entitled to recover. The valuers’ award was final between the parties.
Kelly CB and Martin B held that the conduct of the claimant had made it impossible to restore the parties to their original condition, or to do justice between them (ie rescind), and that therefore the claimant could not maintain an action for money had and received. Martin and Bramwell BB held that, to enable the plaintiff to maintain an action for money paid by mistake as money had and received by the defendant, notice of the mistake must have been given to the defendant and a demand made.
Martin B said: ‘The parties have entered into an agreement for the sale of the defendant’s interest in the farm, stock and crops, for an entire sum to be put on it by two valuers, and of which 2000l. was paid down . . A promissory note is given for the amount of the valuation according to the agreement, and is paid; the plaintiff enters into possession of the farm; he again sells his interest, and so ceases to be able to return to the defendant what he had got from him; and now, the valuer on this sale having discovered what he thinks to be a mistake (and what we must suppose to be such) in the former valuation, the plaintiff without notice brings an action against the defendant to recover the whole sum which he has paid under that valuation. We are asked to treat the whole affair as a nullity, and are told that this is the essence of justice. But the effect contended for could only be produced by a rescission of the contract, and the contract cannot be rescinded unless the parties can be restored to their original condition. But if one party has done an act by reason of which it has become impossible to put the other in the same situation as before, there can be no rescission, and the remedy, if any, must be on the contract. It is contended that under these circumstances, a contract will be implied to return the money; but I am not of that opinion. If an action lies for recovering the money paid for those items which ought not to have been included in the valuation, it would be an action for the return of a portion of the money paid, on the ground that the consideration had failed, and after notice given that it had failed. But unless some communication has been made by the plaintiff, he is not entitled to recover either the whole or any part of this sum. On the ground, therefore, that the plaintiff is not in a position to sue without having made a demand on the defendant, I am of opinion that this rule must be made absolute.’
Bramwell B said: ‘I give no opinion on many of the questions which have been discussed; but on the ground I am about to mention I think this rule must be made absolute. The plaintiff’s case is this: ‘I have paid money which I was not bound to pay, and which, if I had known facts which I now know, I should not have paid. I paid it on the footing of a valuation having been made, when, in fact, no valuation had been made; neither a valuation including in distinct items the matters which were to be valued, nor a valuation in general of the whole of the items for which I ought to pay.’ But if the plaintiff were under the circumstances entitled to be repaid the sum he claims, he ought to have given notice to the defendant of the facts by reason of which he was so entitled; because until he did so there could be no duty on the defendant to pay, it over.’
Orse Freeman v Jefferies

Kelly CB, and Martin and Pigott BB
(1868-69) LR 4 Ex 189
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Wilkinson And Another v Godefroy 17-Jan-1839
The court considered a claim for the recovery of money from a stakeholder to whom it had been entrusted, in which case a demand is necessary to throw upon the depositee a duty to repay. . .

Cited by:
Distinguished – Baker v Courage and Co 1910
The plaintiff had owned a public house. On selling the leasehold to the defendants brewers, they had overpaid him by andpound;1,000. He deposited a sum at interest with the defendants. When he came to withdraw the last of the deposit (by coincidence . .
Cited – Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and Another ChD 6-Mar-2001
A tenant complained to the landlord about his failure to repair. He ceased paying rent, and the landlord eventually distrained for rent by direct action.
Held: The tenant was unable to claim a legal set-off because there was no context of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.416722

Antoniades v Villiers and Another: CA 17 Mar 1988

The court considered whether a license agreement was a sham and that a tenancy had been created. Bingham LJ said: ‘Where a written agreement is not held to be a sham, the task of the court, as with any other agreement, is to construe it and give fair effect to its terms in the context of all relevant surrounding circumstances’

Bingham LJ
[1988] 3 WLR 139, (1988) 20 HLR 439, [1988] EWCA Civ 3, [1988] 2 All ER 309, (1988) 56 P and CR 334, [1988] EGCS 33
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
Cited – Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2); Duke v Wynne CA 27-Jun-1989
Occupiers claimed that they had secure tenancies. The owner said that they were mere lodgers. In Murphy (1), the landlord said that the occupier must share possession with other occupiers if required. He now said that he had retained a key and that . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.245289

Marjorie Burnett Ltd v Barclay: ChD 12 Dec 1980

A lease was created of a shop, dwellings and out-buildings. By clause 6 the tenant had a right to renew the lease, with the new lease creating the same provision. The defendant claimed that as a perpetually renewable lease it took effect as a lease of 2,000 years. The landlord said it allowed only one renewal.
Held: The lease was explicit in its terms and had created a perpetually renewable lease.

Nourse J
[1980] EWHC Ch 1, [1981] 1 EGLR 41, [1980] 125 Sol Jo 199
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1922 Schedule 15, paragraph 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Baynham v Guy’s Hospital 1796
A legal deed is not to be construed by reference to the acts of the parties. . .
Cited – Caerphilly Concrete Products Ltd v Owen CA 5-Nov-1971
A lease contained an agreement by the landlord to grant a lease for a further term of five years ‘at the same rent and containing the like covenants and provisos as are herein contained (including an option to renew such lease for the term of five . .
Cited – Parkus v Greenwood ChD 1950
In the lease, the landlord agreed to grant a further lease: ‘for a further term of three years from the expiration of the said term at the same rent and containing the like agreements and provisions as are herein contained, including the present . .
Cited – Green v Palmer 1944
The tenant had a six monthly tenancy of furnished premises. He said that a right given by the agreement to a renewed lease which was again to include the right to a new lease, made it perpetually renewable under the 1922 Act.
Held: No . .
Cited – Swinburne v Milburn HL 1884
In construing a covenant in a lease with the effect of providing that it will be perpetually renewable, the same approach should be taken as with any other clause or contract. The parties’ intentions are to be deduced from the words used in the . .
Cited – Moore v Foley 1801
Prima facie, a lessor will be taken not to have intended to create a perpetually renewable lease, but the court will give effect to such if there is in the lease clear evidence of such an intention. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.245431

West Country Cleaners (Falmouth) Limited v Saly: CA 1966

The landlord lived next door to the premises and frequently visited the premises. The tenant failed to paint the ceiling and did no painting in the last year of the term. The landlord objected to the exercise of an option in the lease. The tenant said that the breaches had been waived by the landlord’s failure to object to the breaches.
Held: A covenant to renew so long as lessee’s obligations were duly performed is strictly interpreted against the lessee. Such an option required both notice and observance of the covenants in the lease if the tenant was to be able to exercise it. This applied even though the breaches might be trivial.
Dankwerts LJ said: ‘An option of this character [to extend the terms of a lease] is a privilege – a right which has always been treated by the law as requiring compliance with the terms and conditions upon which the option is to be exercised.’

Dankwerts LJ
[1966] 3 All ER 210, [1966] 1 WLR 1485
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Haugland Tankers As v RMK Marine Gemi Yapim Sanayii Ve Deniz Tasimaciligi Isletmesi As ComC 9-Mar-2005
An option agreement was granted for the sale of a ship hull. The option was excercised but the defendant claimed the commitment fee required was not paid.
Held: The exercise of an option had to be in the precise terms set out in the contract. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.223447

Hare v Nicoll: CA 1966

In an option for the renewal of a lease, or for the purchase or re-purchase of property, the contractual right must be exercised strictly within the time limited for the purpose, otherwise it will lapse. Danckwerts LJ said: ‘The authority cited for that proposition is a very striking case, Dibbins v. Dibbins, a decision of Chitty J. In that case an option for a surviving partner to purchase a deceased partner’s share had to be exercised within three months of his death. A notice within the three months was given by solicitors on behalf of the surviving partner, but he was of unsound mind, and therefore the notice was not effective. Under an order in lunacy, a fresh notice was given, but it was too late in time, and equally ineffective. The rule really is long established, as Ranelagh (Lord) v. Melton (a decision of Kindersley V-C) and other cases show.’

Danckwerts LJ
[1966] 2 QB 130, [1966] 1 All ER 285
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes CA 5-Nov-1973
An option was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing’ before a certain date. The solicitors’ letter doing so was addressed to the defendant at his residence and place of work, the house which was the subject of the option to purchase, was posted by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.223445

A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger: HL 10 Nov 1988

In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to occupy it so as to create no more than a licence.
Held: Behaviour by the parties after a tenancy areement was not relevant in construing the tenancy agreement, but can be used to see whether the document properly reflected what the parties intended. Such surrounding circumstances include ‘any relationship between the prospective occupiers, the course of negotiations and the nature and extent of the accommodation and the intended and actual mode of occupation.’ The documents were interdependent, and in fact the tenants had enjoyed exclusive occupation. The clause allowing additional occupiers was a sham. The two agreements had to be read together. The parties could not contract out of the Rent Acts, and clause 16 did not reflect the true position and that accordingly clause 16 should be struck out.
In A G Securities, four tenants of a property had signed separate documents at different times. They now claimed to have one joint tenancy rather than licence agreements as claimed by the landlord.
Held: The court will look to the substance and reality of the transaction entered into by the parties, not just the apparent form. Nevertheless, in this case the rigts and duties having been created originally as several obligations, could not become joint.
Lord Templeman said: ‘Where a landlord creates a tenancy of a flat and reserves the right to go into exclusive occupation at any time of the whole or part of the flat with or without notice, that reservation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Acts and cannot be enforced without an order of the court under section 98. Where a landlord creates a tenancy of a flat and reserves the right to go into occupation of the whole or part of the flat with or without notice, jointly with the existing tenants, that reservation also is inconsistent with the provisions of the Acts. Were it otherwise every tenancy agreement would be labelled a licence and would contract out of the Rent Acts by reserving power to the landlord to share possession with the tenant at any time after the commencement of the term.
Clause 16 is a reservation to Mr Antoniades of the right to go into occupation or to nominate others to enjoy occupation of the whole of the flat jointly with Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger. Until that power is exercised Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger are jointly in exclusive occupation of the whole flat making periodical payments and they are therefore tenants. The Rent Acts prevents the exercise of a power which would destroy the tenancy of Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger and would deprive them of the exclusive occupation of the flat which they are now enjoying. Clause 16 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Rent Acts.
There is separate and alternative reason why clause 16 must be ignored. Clause 16 was not a genuine reservation to Mr Antoniades of the power to share the flat and a power to authorise other persons to share the flat. Mr Antoniades did not genuinely intend to exercise the powers save possibly to bring pressure to bear to obtain possession. Clause 16 was only intended to deprive Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger of the protection of the Rent Acts. Mr Villiers and Miss Bridger had no choice in the matter.’
Lord Bridge said: ‘Here the artificiality was in the pretence that two contemporaneous and identical agreements entered into by a man and a woman who were going to live together in a one-bedroom flat and share a double bed created rights and obligations which were several rather than joint. As to the nature of those rights and obligations, the provisions of the joint agreement purporting to retain the right in the respondent to share the occupation of the flat with the young couple himself or to introduce an indefinite number of third parties to do so could be seen, in the relevant circumstances, to be repugnant to the true purpose of the agreement. No one could have supposed that those provisions were ever intended to be acted on. They were introduced into the agreement for no other purpose than as an attempt to disguise the true character of the agreement which it was hoped would deceive the court and prevent the appellants enjoying the protection of the Rent Acts. As your Lordships all agree, the attempt fails.’

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
[1988] 1 EGLR 36, [1990] 1 AC 417, [1988] 3 WLR 1205, [1988] UKHL 8, [1988] 3 All ER 1058
Bailii
Rent Act 1977 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Dictum approved – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Appeal from – Antoniades v Villiers and Another CA 17-Mar-1988
The court considered whether a license agreement was a sham and that a tenancy had been created. Bingham LJ said: ‘Where a written agreement is not held to be a sham, the task of the court, as with any other agreement, is to construe it and give . .
Cited – Cole v Harris 1945
The court was aksed whether a single room was let as a separate dwelling.
Held: Sharing of the use of a bathroom or toilet need not prevent a tenancy being protected. . .
Cited – Neale v Del Soto CA 1945
A letting of two of a number of rooms in a property together with joint use with the landlord of the kitchen, bathroom, lavatory and conservatory was not a letting of the two rooms as a separate dwelling, but a sharing of the property. The letting . .
Cited – Curl v Angelo CA 1948
Two rooms were let to the proprietor of an adjoining hotel as additional accommodation for the hotel. They were used mainly for guests but occasionally for the hotel tenant’s family or staff. One such claimed security of tenure.
Held: The . .
Cited – Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder 1978
Mr Fielder and Miss Maxwell together applied to take a self-contained flat. Each signed an agreement to pay andpound;54.17 per month to share the use of the flat with one other person. The couple moved into the flat and enjoyed exclusive occupation. . .
Cited – Hadjiloucas v Crean CA 1988
Two ladies applied to take two-roomed flat with kitchen and bathroom. Each signed an agreement to pay pounds 260 per month to share the use of the flat with one other person. They moved into the flat and enjoyed exclusive occupation. In terms, if . .
Cited – Sturolson v Weniz CA 1984
The plaintiffs took occupation under an agreement which purported to grant a non exclusive right of possession of the flat, and to be personal. Occupation could only be shared with persons approved in advance by L. L’s agent had said the agreement . .
Cited – Somma v Hazelhurst CA 1978
A young unmarried couple H and S occupied a double bedsitting room for which they paid a weekly rent. The landlord did not provide services or attendance and the couple were not lodgers but tenants enjoying exclusive possession.
Held: The . .
Cited – Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA 26-Feb-1986
The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .

Cited by:
Cited – Homebase Ltd and Another v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc CA 17-May-2002
The tenant held land under a lease restricting the terms of any underletting. It wanted to sublet part, but could find no tenant who would take the terms. It sought to let the property in a sub-lease which complied formally with the head-lease but . .
Cited – Parkins v City of Westminster CA 20-Nov-1997
The council granted what it called a licence to the applicant. He was one of their employee teachers, and they wanted to supply accomodation. They appealed refusal of possession on the basis that he had become a secure tenant under the Act. It had . .
Cited – Collier v Collier CA 30-Jul-2002
Fraudulent Intent Negated Trust
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .
Cited – Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another CA 24-Apr-2001
A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from pounds 4,680, to pounds 25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit . .
Cited – Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2); Duke v Wynne CA 27-Jun-1989
Occupiers claimed that they had secure tenancies. The owner said that they were mere lodgers. In Murphy (1), the landlord said that the occupier must share possession with other occupiers if required. He now said that he had retained a key and that . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract, Housing

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.181340

Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan: CA 30 Jul 1997

A lease of a pub contained a term by which the parties purported to agree that the Block Exemption applied. The claimants sought to enforce its beer tie which was by type. The lessee contended among other things that the tie was not within the exemption. The appeal against the judge’s grant of an injunction was dismissed. A list of beer prices in a pub tie agreement was a reference to prices from time to time, not to prices at start of lease. The tenant was bound by the tie agreement. It was not necessary to decide whether the tie was within the exemption, but: ‘[A] close analysis of Arts 6, 7 and 8 shows that it is only the type of beer or other drink which must be specified in the contract, and that these articles do not require the brand or trade mark to be so specified, so that the supplier is at liberty to add or vary the brands or trademarks to which the tie extends by amending his price list from time to time, although he may not extend the scope of the tie by adding further types of drinks. That is the submission which is made to us on behalf of the plaintiff, and I, for my part, find it convincing.’ Staughton LJ: ‘I am not yet convinced that a supplier can unilaterally extend a list of commodities as to which the tenant is bound by the tie.’

Millett LJ, Judge LJ, Staughton LJ
Times 20-Aug-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2240, [1998] EuLR 507
Commission Regulation 1984/83/EEC (OJ 1983 L173)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan CA 29-Apr-1997
An appellant should notify the respondent if wishes to apply again for leave to add further grounds of appeal. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
Cited – Gibbs Mew Plc v Gemmell and Gibbs Mew Plc and Centric Pub Company Ltd v Gemmell CA 22-Jul-1998
The brewery sought possession of a public house, tied by type. The lessee claimed damages for breach of Art. 81 and a declaration that the Block Exemption was inapplicable to his lease. His appeal from the judge’s order in favour of the brewery was . .
See Also – Greenalls Management Limited v Canavan CA 29-Apr-1997
An appellant should notify the respondent if wishes to apply again for leave to add further grounds of appeal. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commercial

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.142637

Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another: CA 24 Apr 2001

A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from pounds 4,680, to pounds 25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit would be insufficient.
Held: The agreement to increase the rent was a sham. The purpose of the agreement was to grant an assured tenancy, and therefore the purpose was to provide security. The rent increase was never expected to be paid, and although the Act left the parties to agree their rent, the increased amount when properly analysed was not rent, but a way of defeating the tenant’s security.

Pill, Arden LJJ
Times 24-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 528, [2001] L and TR 27, [2001] 16 EGCS 145, [2002] HLR 42, [2001] 26 EG 164, [2001] 2 EGLR 36, [2001] 1 WLR 1369, [2001] NPC 74
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – L’Estrange v F Graucob Limited CA 1934
The company’s order form contained a clause providing them with complete exemption from liability: ‘Any express or implied, condition, statement of warranty, statutory or otherwise is expressly excluded’.
Held: If a party signs a written . .
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA 24-Oct-1995
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
Cited – Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CA 12-Nov-1987
Incorporation of Onerous Terms Requires More Care
Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date.
Held: The plaintiff had not . .

Cited by:
Cited – Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others SC 27-Jul-2011
Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers
The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.78168

Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd, Re 11 Scatterdells Park: UTLC 31 Jul 2014

UTLC PARK HOMES – sale of mobile home and assignment of pitch agreement – occupier’s notice of proposed sale – owner’s notice of application for a refusal order – whether notice may predate or must postdate application – para 7B, Sch 1, Mobile Homes Act 1983 – Mobile Homes (Selling and Gifting) (England) Regulations 2013 – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKUT 351 (LC)
Bailii
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Mobile Homes (Selling and Gifting) (England) Regulations 2013
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536069

One Housing Group Leasholders of 29 Flats In Navigation Court: UTLC 16 Jul 2014

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – whether estate service charge are a recoverable head of expenditure under Sub-underleases – determination of the extent of liability of the sub-underlessees – true construction of terms of Sub-underleases – whether LVT misdirected itself on the aspect of ‘reasonableness’ pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s. 19.

[2014] UKUT 330 (LC)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536068

Barrett v Robinson: UTLC 29 Jul 2014

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – administration charges – covenant to pay costs of proceedings – whether costs incurred ‘in or in contemplation of’ proceedings under s.146, Law of Property Act 1925 – Freeholders of 69 Marina v Oram considered – s.81, Housing Act 1996 – ss.167-169, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – appeal allowed

[2014] UKUT 322 (LC)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 146, Housing Act 1996 167 168 169
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536065

Britaniacrest Ltd, Re Broadfields Park: UTLC 29 Oct 2013

UTLC PARK HOMES – administration charges – whether written statement permits administration charge for utilities – whether term to be implied – whether dispute over liability sufficiently identified to be open for consideration by RPT – effect of compromise of part of dispute – effect of part of dispute being raised in parallel county court proceedings – Mobile Homes Act 1983

Martin Rodger QC, DP
[2013] UKUT 521 (LC)
Bailii
Mobile Homes Act 1983
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535665