Category: Landlord and Tenant

Eastern Pyramid Group Corporation Sa v Spire House Rtm Company Ltd: CA 9 Nov 2021

This appeal is about the procedure which tenants in a block of flats must use if they wish to exercise their right under s79 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to take away from the landlord the right to manage the property.

Lord Justice Birss
[2021] EWCA Civ 1658
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.669730

One Housing Group Ltd v Kingham and Another: UTLC 25 Jun 2014

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – right-to-buy leases – interpretation – whether ‘common parts’ limited to common parts of individual building or of entire estate – replacement of district heating system under PFI contract – whether lessees liable to contribute to maintenance of replacement system – appeal allowed

[2014] UKUT 231 (LC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534081

Sayer Re: 48 Woodland View: UTLC 24 Jun 2014

UTLC PARK HOMES – Pitch Fee Review – water – whether pitch fee included charge for the supply of water – whether annual RPI increase to apply to the whole pitch fee or only to that part not referable to the supply of water – Mobile Homes Act 1983 – Water Industry Act 1991, s.150 – Water Resale Order 2006 – appeal dismissed

[2014] UKUT 283 (LC)
Bailii
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Water Industry Act 1991 150, Water Resale Order 2006
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Utilities

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534082

Clickex Ltd v McCann: CA 26 May 1999

A failure by a landlord under the pre-1996 assured shorthold tenancy regime, to insert the correct tenancy dates in a shorthold notice, meant that the tenancy became an assured tenancy, since the arrangement failed to meet the requirements to create a shorthold tenancy. The divisional court had decided that the landlord’s possession action had failed, but that the notice had been effective to create only a shorthold tenancy. The tenant appealed, but the landlord took no part saying the tenant had already achieved what he required.
Held: The error was of the non-obvious kind, and failed to meet the test as described in Mannai, and it was ineffective. The tenancy was an assured tenany, not a shorthold tenancy.

Butler-Sloss LJ, Holman J
Times 26-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1416, [1999] 2 EGLR 63, (1999) 32 HLR 6324
Bailii
Housing Act 1988 20
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Curtis v London Rent Assessment Committee CA 1999
The Court of Appeal was itself able to remit the case back direct to the rent assessment committee for a new determination of the rent, exercising the power of the court below: ‘If … McCullough J ‘s rulings on the substantive issue are wrong or . .
Cited – Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.79222

Malone, Malone, Goldstein v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Ltd, Stowell, Visortuning Ltd: ChD 19 Dec 2003

Houseowners around a square had variously enfranchised their properties, but were now in dispute as to the management of the communal garden.
Held: Though the company was unable to recover the legal costs in the absence of an express power, they had otherwise acted properly.

Mr Justice Collins
[2003] EWHC 3173 (Ch)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20C(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co v Riche HL 1875
A company created under the Act is not created a corporation with inherent common law rights. The memorandum was the company’s charter which could not be departed from save so far as permitted by s12. A contract made by the directors upon a matter . .
Cited – Rhyl Urban District Council v Rhyl Amusements Ltd 1959
The tenant said that the landlord local authority had accepted his surrender of his lease by granting a new one, but the new lease was void as ultra vires.
Held: Not even the surrender of their old lease on the promise to grant the new one . .
Cited – Sella House Ltd v Mears 1989
The lease service charge provision, included the following costs: ‘to employ . . professional persons as may be necessary or desirable for the proper . . administration of the Building’.
Held: Those words did not include the costs of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.191200

Lymington Marina Ltd v MacNamara and others: ChD 4 Apr 2006

The claimant marina had been constructed with financial assistance from debenture holders who in return were given low cost licences. The claimant sought to refuse to the defendant debenture holders the right to sub-licence their rights to berth boats. It had originally said that debenture holders would be able to transfer and sub-licence their rights. The company was concerned that casual and temporary users and licencees were less likely to use its associated boat businesses at the marina. The company had taken a policy, not provided for in the contract of itself taking the right to sell any berth which became available through, as in this case, the death of the member. The claimant sought clarification through the court after the defendant had sought to create sub-licences otherwise than in the manner it said had been agreed, and sought revocation.
Held: The consent to the assignment had not been obtained by misrepresentation. The court construed the agreement. The agreement was in many ways derived from leases, but in practice was a one-off. There was no right in the claimant to limit repeated sub-licences. The claimant did not have the right to refuse sub-licences for reasons not associated with the proposed sub-licensee: ‘It cannot have been the intention of the parties that LML having granted the licences for a term of 98 years should be able to frustrate their transfer whether by assignment or by a sub-licence on grounds unconnected with the proper operation of the licence . . .’ To allow the claimant to grant sub-licences as it sought would be to re-write the agreement. ‘There is no duty as such to give reasons for refusing consent but the absence of good reasons which conform to the grounds for refusal permitted under clause 3(k) may be taken as indicating that no proper reasons exist.’

Patten J
[2006] EWHC 704 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Price v Bouch 1986
The power to approve building plans on an estate had been passed to a committee of all estate owners. The plaintiff said that a term should be implied to say that approval should not be unreasonably withheld.
Held: A term that consent would . .
Cited – Gan Insurance Company Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Company Ltd (No 3) CA 1-Mar-2002
Tai Ping had placed facultative insurance with Gan. The substantial risks were re-insured through various agencies. When a claim arose it was repudiated alleging misrepresentation. Gan asserted that Tai Ping had failed to co-operate in the . .
Cited – Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd (No 2) CA 1993
Where parties enter into a contract which confers a discretion on one of them, the discretion must be exercised honestly and in good faith, and not ‘arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably’. The owner had acted unreasonably in that there was no . .
Cited – Paragon Finance plc v Nash etc CA 15-Oct-2001
The court was asked to consider whether there was any implied term limiting the power of a mortgagee to set interest rates under a variable rate mortgage.
Held: A loan arrangement which allowed a lender to vary the implied rate of interest, . .
Cited – Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Jul-2001
A reinsurance contract which contained a clause which provided that no settlement or compromise of a claim could be made or liability admitted by the insured without the prior approval of the reinsurers. The court considered how the discretion to . .
Cited – Killick v Second Covent Garden Property Co Ltd CA 1973
The belief of the landlord, however reasonable, that the proposed assignee intended to use the demised premises for a purpose which would give rise to a breach of the user covenant was not of itself a ground for withholding consent to assignment. . .
Cited – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Lymington Marina Ltd v MacNamara and others CA 2-Mar-2007
A share in a marina had been inherited by one brother whose application to grant successive sub-lcences of it to the other two was rejected by the marina, who said that this was not permitted. The marina appealed a finding that it had to make its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.240114

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Marilyn Hislop: ChD 5 Dec 2003

conflict between a landlord’s claim to possession and a tenant’s claim to exercise her right to buy, both being claims arising under the Housing Act 1985.

The Hon Mr Justice Lindsay
[2003] EWHC 2944 (Ch), [2004] 1 All ER 1036
Bailii
Housing Act 1985
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Basildon District Council v Wahlen CA 28-Mar-2006
The tenant was a successor tenant with security, and sought to exercise his right to buy. The authority itself claimed possession saying that the property was too large.
Held: The statute gave rise to competing claims.The tenant’s right to buy . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.188425

Denetower Ltd v Toop: CA 1991

The tenants sought to acquire the freehold under the Act. The landlord sought to exclude the gardens and other appurtenancies.
Held: They had been included in the demise of the flats and were to be included in the title to be purchased. The l987 Act is ‘ill-drafted, complicated and confused’.

Browne-Wilkinson VC
[1991] 1 WLR 945, [1991] 3 All ER 661, Times 05-Apr-1991
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 12(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd v Berisworth Ltd ChD 27-Feb-2008
Tenants asserted a right of first refusal under the 1987 Act on a proposed disposal of the freehold. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.194052

Methuen-Campbell v Walters: CA 1978

The curtilage of a house is narrowly confined to the area surrounding it and did not extend to a paddock. Buckley LJ said: ‘In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately associated with the latter as to lead to the conclusion that the former in truth forms part and parcel of the latter. There can be very few houses indeed that do not have associated with them at least some few squares yards of land, constituting a yard or a basement area or passageway or something of the kind, owned and enjoyed with the house, which on a reasonable view could only be regarded as part of the messuage and such small pieces of land will be held to fall within the curtilage of the messuage. This may extend to ancillary buildings, structures or areas such as outhouses, a garage, a driveway, a garden and so forth. How far it is appropriate to regard this identity as parts of one messuage or parcel of land as extending must depend on the character and the circumstances of the items under consideration. To the extent that it is reasonable to regard them as constituting one messuage or parcel of land, they will be properly regarded as all falling within one curtilage; they constitute an integral whole …’

Goff LJ, Buckley LJ
[1978] 2 EGLR 58, [1979] 1 All ER 606, [1979] QB 525
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Trim v Sturminster Rural District Council CA 1938
The ‘appurtenances’ of a house are confined to the curtilage of the house. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Crockett v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another Admn 24-Oct-2002
The applicant built a shed on land behind his bungalow, but without planning consent. The planning authority issued enforcement proceedings. He appealed, contending that it fell within the Order. The inspector visited the property, and decided that . .
Cited – Dyer v Dorset County Council CA 1988
The court discussed what was meant by the curtilage of the appellant’s house: ‘Thus the sole issue is whether Mr Dyer’s house is or is not within the curtilage of another building or, by the application of section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, . .
Cited – Lowe v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 6-Feb-2003
The landowner appealed against an enforcement notice issued with respect to a chain link fence erected along the driveway of his grade II listed building. He said the drive was not part of the curtilage of the building.
Held: The inspector had . .
Cited – Cadogan v McGirk CA 25-Apr-1996
The court considered whether the 1993 Act should be construed as expropriatory legislation and therefore was to be read strictly.
Held: The Court rejected the submission that the relevant provisions must be strictly construed because the 1993 . .
Approved – Attorney-General ex relater Sutcliffe and Others v Calderdale Borough Council CA 1982
The court discussed whether a terrace of cottages was within the curtilage of an old factory which was a listed building. At first instance, Skinner J had held that they were, and that permission could not be granted for their demolition. The . .
Cited – Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd v Berisworth Ltd ChD 27-Feb-2008
Tenants asserted a right of first refusal under the 1987 Act on a proposed disposal of the freehold. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.181013

Kay-Green and Others v Twinsectra Limited: CA 15 May 1996

The former landlord had sold a number of buildings, some of which fell within Part I of the 1987 Act. The section 5 notice had not been served. The vendor had also failed to comply with his duty (under s 5(5)) to ‘sever’ the transaction, and sell the buildings within Part I separately. A majority of the tenants in three of the buildings containing flats subsequently served a purchase notice on the new landlord under section 12. Under 12(3)(a), where the interest subject to the disposal related to property in addition to the premises within Part I, the purchase notice ‘shall . . require that the new landlord dispose of that estate or interest only so far as relating to those premises’, subject to ‘such modifications as are necessary or expedient in the circumstances.’ Contrary to that requirement, the purchase notice required the transfer of all the buildings, whether or not within Part I. The Judge held that that was a clear breach of the section, which was fatal to the validity of the notice.
Held: The appeal succeeded. That particular requirement was directory only. A new freeholder was bound by the need to give a notice of the right of first refusal to his tenants.

Lord Justice Staughton Lord Justice Aldous and Sir John May
Times 27-May-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1587, [1996] EWCA Civ 1355
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5 12
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Howard v Secretary of State CA 1975
A notice of appeal was given against an enforcement notice, under the Act which required that an appeal should be made by notice in writing to the minister, ‘which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based’. . .

Cited by:
Cited – M25 Group Limited v Tudor and others CA 4-Dec-2003
Tenants served notices under the Act requiring information about the disposal of the freehold. The landlords objected that the notices were invalid in failing to give the tenants’ addresses as required under the Act.
Held: The addresses were . .
Cited – Long Acre Securities Ltd v Karet ChD 3-Mar-2004
The landlord of premises held under long residential leases at low rents gave notice of its intention to sell the freehold. The tenant objected that separate notices should have been given for the several structures involved.
Held: Provided . .
Cited – Kensington Heights Commercial Company Ltd v Campden Hill Developments Ltd CA 21-Mar-2007
The head landlord had accepted a surrender of the head lease and granted a new lease. but for a longer term. The claimant company sought, on behalf of the qualifying tenants of the estate, an order for the disposal to it of the original lease under . .
Cited – Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd v Berisworth Ltd ChD 27-Feb-2008
Tenants asserted a right of first refusal under the 1987 Act on a proposed disposal of the freehold. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.148112

Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd v Berisworth Ltd: ChD 27 Feb 2008

Tenants asserted a right of first refusal under the 1987 Act on a proposed disposal of the freehold.

Mr Justice Warren
[2008] EWHC 350 (Ch), [2008] 2 EGLR 141, [2008] 1 P and CR DG23, [2008] L and TR 12, [2008] NPC 25, [2008] 2 P and CR 3, [2008] 9 EG 200 (CS)
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Part 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Governors of St Thomass Hospital v Charing Cross Railway Company 6-Mar-1861
Where persons under disability are served with a notice, under the Lands Clauses Act, to take part of a house and premises, they are able to sell under the 92d section, and may require the company to take the whole house, and co, although it may not . .
Cited – Methuen-Campbell v Walters CA 1978
The curtilage of a house is narrowly confined to the area surrounding it and did not extend to a paddock. Buckley LJ said: ‘In my judgment, for one corporeal hereditament to fall within the curtilage of another, the former must be so intimately . .
Cited – Kay-Green and Others v Twinsectra Limited CA 15-May-1996
The former landlord had sold a number of buildings, some of which fell within Part I of the 1987 Act. The section 5 notice had not been served. The vendor had also failed to comply with his duty (under s 5(5)) to ‘sever’ the transaction, and sell . .
Cited – Denetower Ltd v Toop CA 1991
The tenants sought to acquire the freehold under the Act. The landlord sought to exclude the gardens and other appurtenancies.
Held: They had been included in the demise of the flats and were to be included in the title to be purchased. The . .
Cited – Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews and General Ltd QBD 9-Feb-1977
The plaintiff complained that the defendant had flown over his and neighbouring properties and taken aerial photographs, and said that this was a gross invasion of his privacy, and that the defendant had invaded his airspace to do so. The plaintiff . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.265963

John Counter v John Macpherson And Others: PC 12 Feb 1845

Agreement for a lease for five years, from the 1st of April 1840, the landlord undertaking to erect, by that time, a new warehouse, on part of the ground to be demised, and to put the old warehouse in repair, the amount of rent to be determined with reference to the amount of the landlord’s expenditure on the buildings. The new building was not erected, nor the old warehouse repaired, on the 1st of April, but no objection was made by the intended lessees, who then occupied part of the premises under a former agreement, and shortly afterwards the whole premises were destroyed by fire. in such circumstances.
Held: Upon a Bill filed by the landlord, for specific performance of the agreement, and for the defendants to rebuild the premises, and to accept a Lease; that it was a condition precedent that the premises should be put in repair before the lease was granted, and that, as the landlord had not performed his engagement within the time limited, the contract could not be enforced in equity, and the Bill dismissed.

[1845] EngR 489, (1845) 5 Moo PC 83, (1845) 13 ER 421
Commonlii
Canada

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.303631

Epsom Grandstand Association Ltd v Clarke: CA 1919

The court considered whether a property, let and used as a public house on the ground floor with a flat above, fell within the ambit of the 1915 Act.
Held: Bankes LJ said that the property ‘was a dwelling house, and nonetheless so because it was also a public house’. His reasoning was that: ‘The object of the legislature was to include all houses which were occupied as dwelling houses . . irrespective of whether the premises were also used for some other purpose. They came within the statute, although part of the premises might be used for other purposes.’

Bankes LJ (with whom Scrutton and Atkin LJJ
(1919) 35 TLR 525
Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Cited – Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.249366

Essex Plan Ltd v Broadminster: ChD 1988

The defendant with the benefit of an option to take a lease was allowed into the premises pursuant to what was described as, and purported to be, a licence. He then claimed a tenancy.
Held: The agreement was indeed a licence. Referring to Street v Mountford, Hoffmann J said: ‘Earlier in his speech Lord Templeman had contrasted the case in which the relationship between the parties was that of vendor and purchaser with an independent grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent.’ and

‘Mr. Pearce drew attention to the fact that contracts for the sale of land commonly provide for the purchaser to be allowed into occupation as a licensee pending completion on terms that he is to pay all outgoings together with interest on the purchase money and is to keep the premises in good repair. The purchaser’s possession is ancillary and referable to his interest in the land created by his contractual right to a conveyance and Lord Templeman acknowledges that such a relationship, although exhibiting the ordinary badges of a tenancy, does not create one.

The fact that the contract in this case provided for Essex Plan to acquire a long lease rather than the freehold is not material. The difference between this case and the ordinary sale under the National Conditions is that Essex Plan had an option to take the lease but was not obliged to do so. In my judgment this also does not affect the application of the principle. The option gave Essex Plan the right to call for the grant of the lease and therefore gave it in equity an immediate interest in the land. Its entry into occupation pending the exercise or expiry of the option was ancillary and referable to that interest. There is therefore no need to infer the creation of a tenancy which would give Essex Plan a different interest in the same land.’

Hoffmann J
(1988) 56 P and CR 353
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 by:
Cited – Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc ChD 12-Mar-2007
His lease had expired, but the defendant continued in occupation under a licence. The parties agreed for new leases on terms fixed, but conditional on the lease being allowed to be contracted out. The tenant now asserted that it occupied the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.269959

Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd: CA 20 Mar 1903

The scope of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment is limited by the fact that the owner of land adjoining the demised premises (which did not belong to the lessor at the date of the lease) might build on it at any time so as to interfere with the draught from the lessee’s chimneys. Section 11 of the 1881 Act: ‘in no way alters the old law as to the class of covenants the burden of which will run with the reversion.’

Cozens-Hardy LJ
[1903] 1 Ch 797, [1903] UKLawRpCh 60
Commonlii
Conveyancing Act 1881 11
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Harbour Estates Limited v HSBC Bank Plc ChD 15-Jul-2004
The lease contained a break clause. The parties disputed whether the benefit of the clause was personal to the orginal lessee, or whether it touched and concerned the land, and therefore the benefit of it passed with the land.
Held: The . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.263188

McNerny v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 1988

The scale of the dampness which had to be endured by a tenant led to constant colds and minor ailments being suffered by the plaintiff and her children who had to live in those unhealthy conditions.
Held: The legislature had ‘conspicuously refrained’ from updating the statutory rent limit and it was therefore not for the courts to create liabilities which Parliament had not thought fit to enact. In a field such as housing law, which is very much a matter for the allocation of resources in accordance with democratically determined priorities, the development of the common law should not get out of step with legislative policy. There was no liability under the Act for a design defect in premises causing condensation, as this did was not disrepair and therefore was not covered by the landlords covenant to repair/maintain under section 11.

Dillon, Taylor LJJ, Sir John Megaw
(1988) 21 HLR 188, [1988] EWCA Civ 2, [1989] 1 EGLR 81, [1989] 19 EG 77
Bailii
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council CA 1986
Because of fungus, mould growth and dampness, the tenant’s council house was virtually unfit for human habitation in the winter when the condensation was at its worst. Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act implied in the tenancy a covenant by the council to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.186076

Kiddle v City Business Properties Ltd: CA 1942

Goddard LJ said: ‘[The plaintiff] takes the property as he finds it and must put up with the consequences. It is not to be supposed that the landlord is going to alter the construction, unless he consents to do so. He would say to his intending tenant: ‘You must take it as it is or not at all.”

Goddard LJ
[1942] 1 KB 269
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.263274

Cheater v Cater: CA 1917

The defendant landlord let a farm to a tenant retaining the adjoining premises on which was a shrubbery containing yew trees. The branches of the yew trees overhung the farm and were within the reach of the tenant’s cattle and horses. The tenant’s horse died after eating yew from the overhanging branches of trees growing on the landlord’s adjoining land.
Held: The tenant’s claim against the landlord in negligence and nuisance failed.
Pickford LJ said: ‘The law of this country is that a tenant, when he takes a farm, must look and judge for himself what the state of the farm is. Just as in the case of a purchaser of a business the rule is caveat emptor, so in the case of taking the lease of property the rule is caveat lessee; he must take the property as he finds it. I never heard that a landlord warranted that the sheep should not eat his yew trees.’ That is a distinct statement of the law and not a dictum. It is the second ground given by the Lord Justice for his judgment. If a judge states two grounds for his judgment and bases his decision upon both, neither of those grounds is a dictum. The law so stated by Mellish L.J. is in agreement with a series of cases of which Sutton v Temple is an early instance. In a case of this kind the tenant takes the land demised as it is, and therefore if the tenant here took the land with the yew trees growing over it so that his cattle could eat of the branches and they did eat, he cannot complain. Therefore the broad proposition argued on behalf of the plaintiff cannot be maintained.’

Pickford LJ
[1917] 21 KB 247
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Erskine v Adeane 1873
Mellish LJ said: ‘The law of this country is that a tenant when he takes a farm must look and judge for himself what the state of the farm is. Just as in the case of a purchaser of a business the rule is caveat emptor, so in the case of the lease of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.263270

Jones v Herxheimer: CA 1950

The landlord let the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor to the tenant for one year. The tenant covenanted to keep and deliver up the premises in good and tenantable repair, but was in breach. The landlord redocorated the rooms and relet the premises, and sought the cost of redecoration. The tenant appealed saying that the landlord’s reversion had not been adversely affected under section 18.
Held: There was evidence on which the judge could hold that the cost of executing the repairs was a measure of the damage to the reversion. There had been no change of user or alteration of the premises. The court was prepared to infer the amount of the diminution in value of the reversion after a tenant’s failure to repair from circumstantial evidence.
Jenkins LJ said: ‘ if there is evidence that the repairs done, being repairs within the covenant, were no more than reasonably necessary to make the rooms fit for occupation or reletting for residential purposes, we fail to see why the proper cost of those repairs should not be regarded prima facie as representing a diminution in the value of the reversion due to the tenant’s breach of covenant, being money which the landlord, acting as an ordinary prudent owner, had to spend on the property owing to the breach and would not had to spend but for the breach . .
The evidence of the tenant’s surveyor as to the capital values of the whole house and of the part let to the defendant seems to us to be beside the point . . we do not for a moment intend to cast doubt on its validity as a measure of the damages recoverable under section 18(1) in cases to which it is appropriate. But we certainly deprecate its introduction as a sine qua non into all cases, including a small and simple case like the present concerned with a letting of some of the rooms in a house, where it becomes a purely hypothetical calculation wholly removed from the practical realities of the matter.’

Jenkins LJ
[1950] 2 QB 106
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Latimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245772

Chrisdell Ltd v Johnson and Tickner: CA 1987

The tenant had a three year term, subject to a covenant against assignment, having been refused permission to assign, he took on the second defendant as a caretaker to look live in and look after the flat while he was away. He told the landlords that this was not happening and that there had been no assignment, and he continued to pay the rent. The tenancy became a statutory tenancy. The plaintiff purchased the freehold and sought possession. The court found the landlord had no knowledge of the breach, and was not prevented from recovering possion by any waiver.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. The landlord’s suspicion was not enough to displace the clear representation from the defendant. The landlord had not had notice of the breach.

(1987) 54 P and CR 257, (1987) 19 HLR 406
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245834

Hill v Rochard: CA 1983

The statutory tenant appealed an order for possession made on the basis that an offer of suitable alternative accommodation had been made and that it was reasonable to make the order. The tenancy had been of a large isolated country house with a paddock and outbuildings. The alternative offered was a modern four bedroom house.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. Nevertheless, the court should have regard to the housing needs of the tenant when deciding that the alternative offered was reasonably suitable for the tenant and her family as regards extent and character, and this would include allowing for the tenant having become accustomed to her environment. The Rent Acts were not intended to protect ‘incidental advantages’ relating to the tenant’s own particular tase for amenities.

Dunn LJ
Times 01-Feb-1983, [1983] 1 WLR 478
Rent Act 1977 Schedule 15 Part IV paragraph 5(1)(b)
England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245850

Haviland v Long: CA 1952

The landlord had a right to recover damages from a tenant for breach of an obligation to keep and leave the premises in repair. The landlord entered into a fresh lease with a new tenant who paid the full economic rent and agreed to carry out the repairs in return for the landlord undertaking to reimburse the new tenant from the damages recovered from the old tenant.
Held: The fact that repairs to demised premises were necessary after the end of a lease was a fact from which damage to the reversion can be inferred. The Court of Appeal rejected the submission that the landlord could not recover damages from the old tenant because, as a result of the agreement with the new tenant, he had suffered no loss. Bargaining between the parties to resolve a dispute did not cause the associated right to be lost because the agreement is properly regarded as res inter alios acta.

Denning LJ, Somervell LJ
[1952] 2 QB 80, [1952] 1 All ER 463
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Latimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245777

Levermore v Jobey: CA 1956

Danckwerts LJ said: ‘A lease is not intended to be either a mental exercise or an essay in literature: it is a practical document dealing with a practical situation.’

Danckwerts LJ
[1956] 1 WLR 697
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.249367

Boswell v Crucible Steel Co: CA 1925

The question was whether plate glass windows which formed part of the wall of a warehouse were landlord’s fixtures within the meaning of a repairing covenant. Atkin LJ answered: ‘. . I am quite satisfied that they are not landlord’s fixtures, and for the simple reason that they are not fixtures at all in the sense in which that term is generally understood. A fixture, as that term is used in connection with the house, means something which has been affixed to the freehold as accessory to the house. It does not include things which were made part of the house itself in the course of its construction.’
Scrutton LJ confessed that he had ‘always had a difficulty in understanding what is meant by ‘landlord’s fixtures’.’

Atkin LJ , Scrutton LJ
[1925] 1 KB 119, [1924] All ER 298
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.240404

In re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd: CA 1916

A company had been set up by two tobacco manufacturers, Mr Rothman and Mr Weinberg. The relationship between them had broken down to the extent that the two shareholders were not on speaking terms and that no business which deserved the name of business in the affairs of the company could be carried on. Even though the company was prosperous and making large profits, an application was now made for the company to be wound up.
Held: The company was not in a state that could have been contemplated at the time when the company had been formed and it should be terminated as soon as possible. Lord Cozens-Hardy MR referred to the grounds for winding up a partnership set out in Lord Lindley’s textbook on Partnership as including ‘Refusal to meet on matters of business, continued quarrelling, and such a state of animosity as precludes all reasonable hope of reconciliation and friendly cooperation’.
It was not necessary to show gross misconduct as a partner but only that the court must be satisfied that it is impossible for the partners to place that confidence in each other which each has a right to expect and that such impossibility has not been caused by the person seeking to take advantage of it.

Lord Cozens-Hardy MR
[1916] 2 Ch 426, [1916-17] All ER 1050
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd and Others (on Appeal from In Re Westbourne Galleries Ltd) HL 3-May-1972
Unfair Prejudice to Minority Shareholder
A company had operated effectively as a partnership between two and then three directors. No dividends had been paid, but the directors had received salaries. One director was removed and sought an order for the other to purchase his shares, or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Company

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.182079

Harbour Estates Limited v HSBC Bank Plc: ChD 15 Jul 2004

The lease contained a break clause. The parties disputed whether the benefit of the clause was personal to the orginal lessee, or whether it touched and concerned the land, and therefore the benefit of it passed with the land.
Held: The defendant was entitled to exercise and did validly exercise the break clause. The purpose of section 63 was to avoid the necessity for conveyancers to provide extensive lists of the rights included in a conveyance: ‘one looks to see what, in terms of estates and interests, was the main corpus intended to be transferred and then, in the absence of an express contrary intention, one may give full literal effect to the words of the section. ‘ and ‘the section requires no investigation beyond whether the right is ‘in, to or on’ the land conveyed; it specifies no examination into whether the particular right or claim is appurtenant or annexed to or enjoyed with the main corpus . . or whether it ‘touches or concerns’ that main subject matter or even ‘has reference to’ it . . Nothing such is expressly required. Nor, one might think, would such a literal effect open any floodgates; the disponor only has to express a contrary intent in the disposition to deny such effect. ‘

Lindsay The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay
[2004] EWHC 1714 (Ch), [2005] 2 WLR 67, [2004] 3 All ER 1057, [2005] 1 EGLR 107, [2005] Ch 194
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 63 142(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Stirrup’s Contract 1961
The parties disputed whether good title had been shown when an assent under seal had been used where a conveyance ordinarily should have been used.
Held: Good title had been shown. Though the law is concerned with substance rather than form, . .
Cited – Rowe d. Bamford v Hayley 1810
The benefit of a break clause passes automatically with the term of the lease creating it. . .
Cited – Griffith v Pelton CA 23-Jul-1957
Claim for declaration as to exercise of break clause in a lease. . .
Cited – Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd CA 20-Mar-1903
The scope of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment is limited by the fact that the owner of land adjoining the demised premises (which did not belong to the lessor at the date of the lease) might build on it at any time so as to interfere with . .
Cited – Public Trustee v Duchy of Lancaster CA 1927
The court was asked whether the conveyance of a farm out of which a tithe rentcharge issued carried with it, by reason of Section 63, the rentcharge itself.
Held: The farm and the tithe rentcharge were two separate hereditaments and express . .
Cited – Thellusson v Liddard 1900
It was argued that section 63 of the 1881 Act operated to pass whatever estate, right or interest the conveying party had in the property there being considered at the date of the deed that was relevant in that case.
Held: Stirling J approved . .
Cited – Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Williams and Others CA 1994
A right to claim rectification of the boundary of the land conveyed passed with the conveyance of the land itself. . .
Cited – Cedar Holdings Ltd v Green CA 1981
A property was held in the joint names of a former husband and wife. To obtain a loan for the husband, a legal charge over the property was executed by the husband, but he had another woman execute for the wife, pretending to be her. The chargee . .
Cited – Hill v Booth CA 1930
Despite its entanglement with a right of entry intended to procure its payment, a separate personal obligation to pay instalments of the sum agreed as the premium for a lease remained merely a personal obligation and that a call for the payment by . .
Cited – Hanbury v Bateman 1920
In the course of commenting on a discussion about the effect of section 63 of the 1881 Act: ‘The effect of the Act may be this, that a conveyance will have the effect of conveying every estate and interest which the person conveying can convey . . . .
Cited – Irving v Turnbull QBD 1900
. .
Cited – Boots the Chemist Ltd v Street 1983
The plaintiff sought rectification of its lease.
Held: The court ordered rectfication applying section 63(1): ‘I need not read any further. But [Counsel] submits, I think rightly so, that under that provision the transfer, which was a transfer . .
Cited – Kumar v Dunning and Another CA 15-Apr-1987
The court considered the effect of section 62 of the 1925 Act.
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘The main intention of Section 62 was to provide a form of statutory shorthand rendering it unnecessary to include such words expressly in . .
Cited – P and A Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group Plc HL 7-Jul-1988
The House was asked as to whether a covenant touched and concerned the land.
Held: Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: ‘Formulations of definitive tests are always dangerous, but it seems to me that, without claiming to expound an exhaustive guide, . .
Cited – Grant v Edmondson CA 1931
The distinctions required by the established rules as to whether a covenant ‘touches and concerns’ the land rules are quite illogical. . .
Cited – System Floors Ltd v Ruralpride Ltd and Another CA 31-Oct-1994
A break clause was contained in an agreement not in the lease but in a side letter which made the benefit of the break clause personal to the original lessee but said nothing express as to whether the burden of the break clause passed to an assignee . .

Cited by:
Cited – JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council CA 12-Mar-2010
The tenant had applied to the landlord for consent to assign certain leases. The court had declared the right to exercise break clauses in certain leases as lost. The court had found the right to be lost after the assignment of the leases by the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.198839

Beck v Scholz: CA 1953

The court faced ‘a jury question to be determined by applying ordinary common sense’. And ‘The question posed and to be answered by ordinary commonsense standards, is whether the particular premises are in the personal occupation of the tenant as the tenant’s ‘home”
‘The word ‘home’ itself is not easy of exact definition, but the question posed, and to be answered by ordinary common sense standards, is whether the particular premises are in the personal occupation of the tenant as the tenant’s home, or, if the tenant has more than one home, as one of his homes. Occupation merely as a convenience for . . occasional visits . . would not, I think, according to the common sense of the matter, be occupation as a ‘home’.’

Evershed MR
[1953] 1 QB 570
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kerr v Stephens CA 15-Feb-2006
The claimant sought a declaration that she had inherited her mother’s stautory tenancy in 1987. She alleged encroachment by the landlord and a failure to repair. The landlord denied that she actually lived there so as to attract the protection of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.240403

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: CA 6 Mar 2007

The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant under the 1925 Act. To minimise the losses, the claimant had assisted the receiver in looking for new tenants. The defendant said a precondition of the claim was that the landlord should have served a notice under section 17(2) of the 1995 Act. The difficulty was as to whether the notice should refer to the unreviewed rent. The tenant argued that the increased element of the rent could only become due once fixed and due.
Held: The tenant’s argument would not leave any scope for section 17(4) of the Act to operate, and ‘Nor do I see why, as a matter of policy, the legislation should have provided for advance warning by way of the two-stage process under the two sub-sections in a case where the unreviewed rent is in arrear, but not when that amount is up to date.’ The Act made no distinction between an original or current rent and a review increase: ‘if a landlord wishes to preserve the possibility of claiming against an original tenant when the rent is subject to review, he must serve section 17(2) notices within 6 months after each rent day in turn, specifying in the Schedule that the sum intended to be recovered is then nil, but subject to paragraph 4 of the notice and the possibility of the rent being determined to be a greater sum. ‘ Since the landlord had not served the notices in this way, the tenant was not entitled to a full indemnity from his assignee for the payments he had made.

Mummery LJ, Rix LJ, Lloyd LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 150, [2007] 2 All ER 871
Bailii, Gazette
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, Land Registration Act 1925 24(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 24-Jul-2003
Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now . .
See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 27-Jul-2004
The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant . .
Appeal from – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 11-Apr-2006
The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The . .
Cited – CH Bailey Ltd v Memorial Enterprises Ltd CA 1974
The court considered the construction of a rent review clause in a lease. Lord Denning MR said: ‘So I think these rent review clauses are to be construed according to their natural meaning. The clause in the present case says that the increased . .
Cited – United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council HL 1978
The House was asked whether a failure by a lessor to keep strictly to the timetable laid down in a rent review clause in a lease necessarily deprived the lessor of the benefit of the rent review.
Held: A stipulation as to time in an option . .
Cited – Alexander v Vane 1836
The Plaintiff had given an oral guarantee to P that the Defendant would pay for certain goods ordered by him from P: if the Defendant did not pay P for the goods, he (the Plaintiff) would do so. The Defendant did not pay the full amount due and the . .
Mentioned – Sleigh v Sleigh 1850
The court considered a claim for an indemnity under a bill of exchange which was said to be unenforceable. . .
Cited – Smith v Howell 1851
A lease had been granted to G, who assigned the term to the Plaintiff, who later assigned on to the Defendant. The assignees each covenanted to perform the obligations under the lease, and to indemnify the assignor. Rent not being duly paid, and the . .
Cited – South Tottenham Land Securities Ltd v R and A Millett (Shops) Ltd CA 1984
The court considered on what date the increased rent determined by a rent review fell due for payment.
Held: O’Connor LJ refused the appeal: ‘If the parties choose to put into a lease that rent is due on quarter days, then there are good . .
Cited – Re Chetwynd’s Estate CA 1938
A liability arose on a joint and several promissory note, where it was clear that one of the two parties (C) was the principal debtor and the other (S) was, as between them, in the position of a guarantor. The note did not comply with the 1927 Act. . .
Cited – Moule v Garrett CA 3-Feb-1872
An original tenant sought an indemnity from an assignee for a later claim by the landlord.
Held: The principles of recoupment are that where a plaintiff has been compelled by law to pay, or, being compellable by law, has paid, money which the . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.249864

Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council: HL 21 Oct 1999

Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a positive duty to require an improvement in the sound-proofing of a building, well beyond standards which had applied at the time when the houses were built. This applied even though the noise would not now be acceptable. In such circumstances, there was no nuisance committed. Acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to action. The covenant for quiet enjoyment is broken if the landlord or someone claiming under him does anything which substantially interferes with the tenant’s title to or possession of the demised premises or with his ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the demised premises. The interference need not be direct or physical.
Lord Millet said that it was not enough for a landowner to act reasonably in his own interest. He must be considerate of the interest of his neighbour. The governing principle is good neighbourliness, and this involves reciprocity. The landlord or landowner must show the same consideration for his neighbour as he would expect his neighbour to show for him. There has, therefore, to be a balance, on both sides, between the use and enjoyment of one’s own land and the use and enjoyment by one’s neighbour of his land. However for a landlord to become liable in nuisance for his tenant’s acts, it is not enough ‘to be aware of the nuisance and take no steps to prevent it. They must either participate directly in the commission of the nuisance, or they must be taken to have authorised it by letting the property.’
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The covenant has a very long history. It has been expressed or implied in conveyances and leases of English land for centuries. It comes from a time when, in a conveyancing context, the words ‘quiet enjoyment’ had a technical meaning different from what they would today signify to a non-lawyer who was unacquainted with their history.’

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde, Lord Millett
Times 22-Oct-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999, [1999] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 1 AC 1, [1999] UKHL 40, [1999] 3 WLR 939, [1999] 3 EGLR 35, [2000] 32 HLR 148, [1999] 45 EG 179, (2000) 79 P and CR D13, [1999] EGCS 122, [2000] Env LR 112, [1999] NPC 123, [2000] L and TR 159, [2000] BLGR 138
House of Lords, Bailii
Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885 12, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hart v Windsor CexC 1843
‘There is no contract, still less a condition, implied by law on the demise of real property only, that it is fit for the purpose for which it is let.’ . .
First instance – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills and Others ChD 11-Mar-1998
A claim for a breach of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment, through the sound of normal activities from a neighbour being heard, succeeded. . .
Cited – Edler v Auerbach 1950
Devlin J said: ‘It is the business of the tenant, if he does not protect himself by an express warranty, to satisfy himself that the premises are fit for the purpose for which he wants to use them, whether that fitness depends upon the state of . .
Cited – Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council CA 1986
Because of fungus, mould growth and dampness, the tenant’s council house was virtually unfit for human habitation in the winter when the condensation was at its worst. Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act implied in the tenancy a covenant by the council to . .
Cited – McNerny v London Borough of Lambeth CA 1988
The scale of the dampness which had to be endured by a tenant led to constant colds and minor ailments being suffered by the plaintiff and her children who had to live in those unhealthy conditions.
Held: The legislature had ‘conspicuously . .
Cited – Jenkins v Jackson ChD 1888
Kekewich J said that the word ‘quietly’ in the covenant for quiet possession in a lease ‘does not mean undisturbed by noise. When a man is quietly in possession it has nothing whatever to do with noise . . ‘Peaceably and quietly’ means without . .
Cited – Kenny v Preen 15-Oct-1962
A landlord’s threats to evict the tenant, accompanied by repeated shouting and knocking on her door, was held to be a breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment. The court explained that ‘the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation of . .
Appeal from – London Borough of Southwark v Mills and Others CA 29-Jul-1998
The authority appealed against an award made in arbitration proceedings brought by its tenant who complained that she could hear everything happening in a neighbouring flat, even though the tenants of that flat wer acting reaosnably.
Held: . .
Cited – St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping HL 1865
The defendant built a factory, from which the escaping chemical fumes damaged local trees.
Held: The defendant was liable even though the smelting was an ordinary business carried on properly, and even though the district surrounding was . .
Cited – Phelps v City of London Corporation 1916
Peterson J said it was ‘at least doubtful’ whether a nuisance by noise was a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. . .
Cited – Tipping v The St Helen’s Smelting Company (Limited) 6-Nov-1863
. .
Cited – Spoor v Green CExC 1874
There had been an assignment of a lease of coal mines but at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff, the coals had already been substantially worked out. The grantor did not have title in the coals and was in breach of the covenant of title. . .
Cited – Anderson v Oppenheimer CA 1880
The defendant owned a house in the City of London with different floors let to tenants. In the lease of the ground floor, he covenanted to allow the tenant ‘peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises during the term without any interruption by . .
Cited – Lyttelton Times Company Ltd v Warners Ltd PC 1906
(New Zealand) The plaintiffs owned a hotel in Christchurch, next to the premises in which the defendants operated a printing press running 24 hours. They made an agreement under which the defendants would rebuild their premises and grant a lease of . .
Cited – Bamford v Turnley 2-Jul-1862
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .
Cited – Sanderson v Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation 1884
The Corporation let a farm to Sanderson. It reserved in favour of Cairns, another tenant farmer, the rights to use a drain across one of Sanderson’s fields and to enter and repair it. Water discharged by Cairns leaked through the drain and flooded . .
Cited – Sampson v Hodson-Pressinger CA 1981
The defendant owned a Victorian house which had been converted vertically into apartments. He let them to tenants under agreements containing the usual covenant of quiet enjoyment. One of the upper storey apartments had made use of the flat roof of . .
Cited – Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
Cited – Carstairs v Taylor 1871
The plaintiffs were tenants of the ground floor of a building. The defendants occupied the top floor. A rat gnawed through a box in which rain water was collected from the roof, causing a leak into the plaintiff’s property, causing damage. No . .
Cited – Kiddle v City Business Properties Ltd CA 1942
Goddard LJ said: ‘[The plaintiff] takes the property as he finds it and must put up with the consequences. It is not to be supposed that the landlord is going to alter the construction, unless he consents to do so. He would say to his intending . .
Cited – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .
Cited – Duke of Westminster v Guild CA 1985
The court was asked whether a landlord was obliged to repair a drain serving the demised premises which passed under the landlord’s retained land.
Held: No such obligation could be implied and it did not fall within the scope of the covenant . .
Cited – Bamford v Turnley 5-Nov-1860
An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great . .
Cited – Jane Robbins, Administratrix of Edwin James Robbins, Deceased v Jones 16-Nov-1863
It is for the grantee of an easement, and not the grantor, to maintain and repair the subject matter of the easement, with a duty to do so if by his neglect the servient tenement suffers damage. . .
Cited – Malzy v Eichholz CA 1916
A landlord is not liable in damages to his lessee under a covenant for quiet enjoyment in respect of a nuisance caused by another of his lessees, even if he knows the lessee is causing the nuisance and takes no steps to prevent it. To be liable for . .
Cited – Dennett v Atherton 1872
The covenant for quiet enjoyment cannot be elevated into a warranty that the land is fit to be used for some special purpose. . .
Cited – Ball v Ray 1873
The occupier of a house in a street in Mayfair had many years previously converted the ground floor into a stable. A new occupier altered the location of the stable so that the noise of the horses became an annoyance to the next-door neighbour and . .
Cited – Leech v Schweder CA 1874
Mellish LJ said: ‘It is perfectly true that the lessee is ‘to hold and enjoy without any suit, let or hindrance.’ But what is he to hold and enjoy? ‘The premises’. What are the premises? The things previously demised and granted. The covenant does . .
Cited – Broder v Saillard 1875
. .
Cited – Davis v Town Properties Investment Corporation Ltd CA 20-Mar-1903
The scope of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment is limited by the fact that the owner of land adjoining the demised premises (which did not belong to the lessor at the date of the lease) might build on it at any time so as to interfere with . .
Cited – Hudson v Cripps 1896
. .

Cited by:
Applied – Long v Southwark London Borough Council CA 27-Mar-2001
The Council outsourced the collection of refuse from the block of council flats where the tenant applicant lived. He asserted that the Council were in breach of their covenants as landlords in failing to ensure that the refuse was collected . .
Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
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 . .
Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Cited – Woods and Another v Riley and Another CA 4-Jul-2005
Neighbours claimed under a covenant requiring the defendants not to use their land in such a way as to cause a nuisance. The neighbours had extended their shop so as to include a post office.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Claims in nuisance . .
Cited – Vella v London Borough of Lambeth Admn 14-Nov-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Cited – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
Cited – Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd CA 11-Aug-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of its claim in nuisance. The parties occupied adjoining units on an industrial estate. The defendant’s business generated odour which, the wall between them being permeable, passed into the claimant’s office . .
Cited – Iran v Berend QBD 1-Feb-2007
The Republic of Iran sought the return of a fragment of ancient Achaemenid relief in the possession of the defendant, saying that it was part of an ancient monument. The defendant said that she had bought it properly at an auction in Paris. The . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Cited – Rees and Another v Windsor-Clive and Others CA 1-Jul-2020
Reservation Derogation construed normally
Construction of tenancy agreement – correct approach to reservations made in favour of the landlord. The landlord required access to the tenanted farm to allow survey work anticipating development of his adjoining land. The tenant now appealed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.135128

Moule v Garrett: CA 3 Feb 1872

An original tenant sought an indemnity from an assignee for a later claim by the landlord.
Held: The principles of recoupment are that where a plaintiff has been compelled by law to pay, or, being compellable by law, has paid, money which the defendant was ultimately liable to pay, so that the latter obtains the benefit of the payment by the discharge of his liability; under such circumstances the defendant is held indebted to the plaintiff in the amount.

Cockburn CJ
(1872) LR 7 Exch 101, [1872] UKLawRpExch 18
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – NIRU Battery Manufacturing Company and Another v Milestone Trading Ltd and others ComC 8-May-2003
There was a contract for the sale of lead ingots. The sale was supported by letters of credit but inaccurate certificates were issued to release payment. The parties sought now to amend the contributions in the light of the Royal Brompton Hospital . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Damages, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.181986