Category: Landlord and Tenant

Gill and Another v Lewis and Another: CA 14 Mar 1956

Action was brought by the Plaintiff executors against the Defendant tenants for non-payment of rent and judgment, including an Order for possession, was obtained against one of them – Forfeiture – non-payment of rent – relief

Citations:

[1956] EWCA Civ 2, [1956] 2 QB 1, [1956] 1 All ER 844, [1956] 2 WLR 962

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.262832

Shirley v Crabtree: Admn 27 Jun 2007

The tenant claimed to have become a tenant under the provisions allowing for a succession to the agricultural tenancy. The landlord said that she failed to meet the livelihood conditions.
Held: The requirement to satisfy the condition applied at the time of the giving of the notice requirement, and once met, did not need to be satisfied again at the date of the tribunal hearing.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-2007, [2007] EWHC 1532 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 18, [2008] WTLR 133

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.254345

Phene v Popplewell: 17 Apr 1862

The tenant gave his keys to the landlord and claimed to have surrendered the property.
Held: The landlord’s equivocal act of using the keys for the purpose of obtaining an entrance to the premises was afterwards rendered unequivocal.

Citations:

(1862) 12 CB NS 334, [1862] EngR 584 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.245884

Plummer v Tibsco Ltd and Another: CA 31 Jan 2002

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Robert Walker Lj, Keene LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Plummer v Tibsco Ltd and Another ChD 8-Dec-1999
Where a tenant of a public house wished to assert that a clause in an option to renew restricting or tying purchases to the Landlord, he was not able to claim the benefit of what he also claimed was an illegal agreement. The nature of the obligation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.216736

Abbott v Bayley: CA 20 Jan 1999

Appeal against award of damages for breach by landlord of covenant for quiet enjoyment and under the 1988 Act.
Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. ‘There is no fixed point at which it can be said that breaches of the covenant of quiet enjoyment become so serious as to constitute qualifying conduct for the purposes of s 27. Provided only and always that each of the specified preconditions of liability are found satisfied, then necessarily the claim for statutory damages succeeds. ‘

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 619

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sampson and Others v Wilson and Others CA 19-Apr-1995
A landlord’s estate management agent was not jointly liable with the Landlord for damages for acts of harassment of the tenant committed by the landlord. . .
Cited – Sampson v Wilson 1994
The court considered the dangers of a double award of damages for a landlord’s breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment. . .
Cited – Jones and Lee v Miah and Another CA 9-Sep-1992
The landlord should be deemed to have been in possession of the land when calculating damages for unlawful eviction. The measure of damages ‘represents the financial advantage which the landlord has gained . . . and of which it is the purpose of . .
Cited – Tagro v Cafanec CA 1991
In a case of unlawful eviction, the only valuation evidence was that produced by the tenant and such evidence was not challenged by the landlord. The grounds of appeal included the contentions that the award of damages was excessive and bore no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145534

Wilson and Plummer v Yeo: CA 27 Jan 1999

The claimants were executors of the estate of the owner of the property. The defendant had had a sexual relationship with the deceased, and claimed to have occupied the property under a licence. He now sought leave to appeal against an order for possession.
Held: The application showed no grounds of appeal which might succeed, and leave was refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 660

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145575

National Grid Company Plc v M25 Group Ltd: CA 21 Dec 1998

Legal dispute about jurisdiction: does the court have jurisdiction to determine the questions raised in the Originating Summons? Or should those questions be determined exclusively by the independent valuer?

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1968, [1999] L and TR 190

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145447

Passmore v Morland and Co plc and Others: CA 2 Feb 1999

The court was asked whether a beer supply agreement which, as between the original parties, was prohibited by Article 85(1) and so automatically void under the provisions of Article 85(2), may, nevertheless, be enforced by an assignee from one party in circumstances in which, if an agreement in identical terms had been entered into between the assignee and the other party at the time of the assignment, that agreement would not have been prohibited.
Held: A public house tie to buy its beer from one supplier, which was unenforceable because the supplier controlled many such outlets, could become lawful and enforceable when assigned to a company which controlled fewer outlets.

Citations:

Times 11-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 696

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – David John Passmore v Morland Plc, The Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) Ltd, The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Company Limited ChD 8-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.84600

Robb’s Trust, The Governors of, Against Edwards: SCS 26 May 2015

Extra Division, Inner House. The House was asked whether, in respect of a lease governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, in terms of which the landlords have served on the tenant a notice to quit which is disputed by the tenant, and the dispute proceeds to arbitration, section 23(4) of the Act has the effect that the lease continues and rent remains due and payable until the date of issue of the arbiter’s award.

Judges:

Lord Menzies

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 39

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547650

Arnold v Britton and Others: SC 10 Jun 2015

Absurdity did not defeat a clear clause

A standard lease of plots on a caravan park, contained a provision which appeared to increase the rent by 10% in each year. The tenants argued that such a substantial increase could not have been intended.
Held: The tenants’ appeal failed (Lord Carnwath dissenting). The words were clear, and even though they might lead eventually to an absurdly high service charge, they remained the primary source for any interpretation of the lease.
When interpreting a written contract, the court is concerned to identify the intention of the parties by reference to ‘what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean’. The court was to discover what had actually been agreed, and not what should have been agreed. It was not the court’s job to save a party from a bad decision or from imprudent advice. The Court cautioned against making too free a use of business common sense and commercial context in order to give to a contract a meaning that its language cannot properly bear.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President , Lord Sumption , Lord Carnwath , Lord Hughes , Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2015] UKSC 36, [2015] HLR 31, [2016] 1 All ER 1, [2015] WLR(D) 247, [2015] 2 WLR 1593, [2015] AC 1619, UKSC 2013/0193

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (The ‘Diana Prosperity’) HL 1976
In construing a contract, three principles can be found. The contextual scene is always relevant. Secondly, what is admissible as a matter of the rules of evidence under this heading is what is arguably relevant, but admissibility is not decisive. . .
Cited – Walker v Giles 1848
The court sought to reconcile conflicting parts of a deed.
Wilde CJ said: ‘And as the different parts of the deed are inconsistent with each other, the question is, to which part effect ought to be given. There is no doubt, that, applying the . .
Cited – Prenn v Simmonds HL 1971
Backgroun Used to Construe Commercial Contract
Commercial contracts are to be construed in the light of all the background information which could reasonably have been expected to have been available to the parties in order to ascertain what would objectively have been understood to be their . .
At CA – Arnold v Britton and Others CA 22-Jul-2013
The court examined provisions in leases creating service charges. The disputed provision increased the service charge by 10% every year.
Held: Davis LJ discussed the thinking behind the clause: ‘Lack of correspondence between outlay and . .
Cited – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (The ‘Diana Prosperity’) HL 1976
In construing a contract, three principles can be found. The contextual scene is always relevant. Secondly, what is admissible as a matter of the rules of evidence under this heading is what is arguably relevant, but admissibility is not decisive. . .
Cited – Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (‘the Antaios’) HL 1984
A ship charterer discovered that the bills of lading were incorrect, but delayed withdrawal from the charter for 13 days. They now sought leave to appeal the arbitration award against them.
Held: Though he deprecated extending the use of the . .
Cited – Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
Cited – McHale v Cadogan CA 21-Jan-2010
‘This appeal concerns two questions of law which have arisen out of the legislation concerned with the collective enfranchisement of leasehold property. The first raises the issue of whether or not the leasehold interest, like the freehold interest, . .
Cited – Rainy Sky Sa and Others v Kookmin Bank SC 2-Nov-2011
Commercial Sense Used to Interpret Contract
The Court was asked as to the role of commercial good sense in the construction of a term in a contract which was open to alternative interpretations.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In such a case the court should adopt the more, rather than the . .
Cited – Aberdeen City Council v Stewart Milne Group Ltd SC 7-Dec-2011
The parties disputed the construction of a contract for land intended for a business park development. It provided for an uplift to be later payable in certain circumstances, and the uplift was now claimed. The question was as to whether the uplift . .
At ChD – Arnold v Britton and Others ChD 3-Dec-2012
The parties disputed the effect of 5 versions of a clause in lease by the appellant to various lessees on a chalet park. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Foster v McNicol and Another QBD 28-Jul-2016
Incumbent Labour leader did not need nominations
The claimant challenged a decision of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to allow its present Leader to stand in the leadership election challenging his position without the need for him to submit first the otherwise standard . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc Product Shipping and Trading SA v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Others CA 22-Oct-2015
The oil owners had contracted for its transport with OWBM aboard Res Cogitans under standard terms which would allow the captain to use the oil for navigation before transfer of the title in the oil. The court was now asked whether the agreement . .
Cited – Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd SC 29-Mar-2017
Construction of term of contract for the sale and purchase of the entire issued share capital of a company.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘the SPA may have become a poor bargain, as it appears that it did not notify the sellers of a warranty . .
Cited – Lehman Brothers International (Europe) v Exotix Partners Llp ChD 9-Sep-2019
The parties had contracted to trade global depository notes issued by the Peruvian government. Each made mistakes as to their true value, thinking them scraps worth a few thousand dollars, whereas their true value was over $8m. On the defendant . .
Cited – Barnardo’s v Buckinghamshire and Others SC 7-Nov-2018
The Court considered the interpretation of a clause in a pension scheme trust deed which defines the phrase ‘Retail Prices Index’ and which allows the trustees of the pension scheme to adopt a ‘replacement’ of the officially published Retail Prices . .
Cited – The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and Others ComC 15-Sep-2020
Test case to determine issues of principle in relation to policy coverage under various specimen wordings underwritten by the defendants in respect of claims by policyholders to be indemnified for business interruption losses arising in the context . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.547712

Willis v Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth: CA 1965

The landlord resisted renewal of the business tenancy saying that he intended to occupy the premises himself. The Court was asked whether the landlord could show the necessary intention under section 30(1)(g) where it intended to occupy the premises for the purposes of its business, but had passed a resolution to enter liquidation for the purposes of reconstruction and to transfer its assets to a successor company in order to convert from a limited company into a chartered company.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The answer to [the point that the landlord did not intend to occupy the premises itself] is, I think, that the landlords did in fact intend to occupy the premises themselves even if only for the short time that should ensue before the transfer. Section 30(1)(g) of the Act of 1954 does not say for how long the landlord must intend to occupy himself, and the courts must fill the gap. It seems to me that in some cases even a short time may suffice. Take the case where the landlord intends to occupy the premises and to carry on business himself there for six months, and then transfer the business to his son as a family arrangement. I should have thought that the father would have sufficient intention to satisfy section 30(1)(g). But suppose the intention was after six months to transfer to a purchaser for cash, I should not expect that intention to suffice. Just as a purchaser within the previous five years cannot defeat the tenant (see section 30(2)), so also a purchaser shortly afterwards should not be able to defeat him. The matters that influence me are these. It is open to the landlord to complete the transfer before the day of hearing, in which case it is the successor’s intention which counts – see section 30(1)(g) – save only that if that successor falls foul of section 30 (2) his intention does not count. Hence I would say that if the landlord intends to occupy the premises and carry on business himself there for a time, and then to transfer to a successor, his intention is sufficient to satisfy section 30(1)(g), unless the intended transfer is one which, if it had been made before the hearing, would have fallen within section 30(2) so as to render section 30(1)(g) unavailable.
Applying those principles to this case it seems to me that the intent of the landlords is sufficient to satisfy section 30(1)(g). They intend to occupy the premises and to carry on their activities therein (by providing the detailed administration for the Universities Central Council on Admissions) and then to transfer their activities to their successors, the chartered company, without any payment in money or anything in the nature of sale or purchase.
The landlords have established, therefore, the statutory ground of opposition. The tenants are not entitled to a new lease.’
Pearson LJ said that the landlord and its successor company were in practice and substance the same: an intention to carry out a sale after taking possession would mean that the landlord had not shown the necessary intention: ‘This case falls within the literal meaning of section 30(1)(g) as the landlords do intend to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business to be carried on by them therein, though only for a short time until transfer of the occupation and the business to the chartered corporation. The transfer will not be by way of sale. and there will be only a formal change of identity. In form the landlords are a limited company which is being wound up, and a new chartered corporation has been created. In substance, however, there is continuity. The phrase alter ego undoubtedly lacks precision for most purposes, but for the present purpose it is a fair description of the landlords in their new guise of the chartered corporation as successors of the landlords in their old guise of the limited company.
There must, however, be some qualification of the literal meaning of section 30(1)(g) of the Act of 1954. A landlord should not be allowed to succeed under section 30(1)(g) in a case where his intention is only to start a business at the premises and carry it on for a few weeks and then sell his interest in the premises and the business. If the sale took place before the hearing the purchaser would be precluded by section 30 (2) from relying on section 30 (1) (g). It should not be possible to evade section 30 (2) by postponing the intended sale until after the hearing. There is, therefore, an implied limitation on the operation of section 30 (1) (g); it is not applicable if the landlord’s intention is to occupy for only a short time and then make a sale. The implied limitation should not be any greater than is necessary to secure consistency between section 30 (1) (g) and section 30 (2). Probably section 30 (1) (g) can be allowed to apply according to its terms without implied limitation in any case where no sale is intended. Certainly it should be allowed to apply according to its terms in a case such as the present where there is no intended transaction even resembling a sale and there is to be complete continuity of operation, and the only transfer is to be a formal transfer to an alter ego of the transferor.’
Salmon LJ said that: ‘The argument runs that, at best, the period during which the landlords will carry on business there before the transfer is so short that the landlords’ real purpose in occupying the premises is to effect the transfer. It is pointed out that in the ordinary case a landlord could not defeat the tenant’s right to a new lease if he intended to occupy the premises and carry on business there for only a few days or weeks before selling them. In such circumstances his real purpose would be to sell the premises, not to carry on business there. No doubt that is so.
If, however, a landlord not being a company, intended to occupy the premises and carry on business there as long as he lived or was physically capable of doing so, his rights under the Act of 1954 could not, in my judgment, be defeated by showing that his expectation of life or of retaining his strength happened to be very short. The tenant could not successfully argue that the landlord’s real intention was merely to transfer the premises to his heirs. If the landlord died before the termination of the tenancy, or indeed at any time before the hearing, his heirs would stand in his shoes and succeed to his rights. They could not be defeated because they had inherited only recently; Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, ss. 30 (2) and 41 (2). So, too, if a landlord transferred otherwise than for money or money’s worth at any time, his transferee would succeed to his rights against the tenant; H. L. Bolton Engineering Co. Ltd. v. T. J. Graham and Co. Ltd.
Here the circumstances are somewhat analogous. The landlord association will be dissolved, for all practical purposes, as soon as the transfer to the new chartered association is complete. It intends to carry on its activities, inter alia, in the three rooms on the top floor of No. 29, Tavistock Square, virtually for the rest of its life, short as that may be. Moreover (and this is of crucial importance), it is quite plain that the transfer to the new chartered association will be by way of gift, and not for any financial consideration. In these circumstances there seems to me to be no reason on principle or authority why the probable brevity of the landlords’ occupation of the three top rooms should confer any benefit upon the tenants, and in my view it does not do so. If the transfer to the chartered association had been completed before the county court hearing, the tenants would clearly have had no right to a new lease. I am glad to think that the law does not make the rights of the parties depend upon the fortuitous circumstance as to whether the transfer is executed sooner rather than later.’

Judges:

Denning MR, Pearson, Salmon LJJ

Citations:

[1965] 1 QB 140, [1965] 2 All ER 393

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – HL Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v TJ Graham and Sons Ltd CA 1957
The landlord asserted that a tenancy should not be renewed and claimed to have held the freehold for more than 5 years.
Held: The Landlord had only become the reversioner to the lease after accepting a surrender of the head lease. The Act . .

Cited by:

Cited – Patel and Another v Keles and Another CA 12-Nov-2009
The landlord objected to the renewal of the lease, saying that he intended to occupy the premises for his own business. The court had found that he intended to sell the property.
Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. Parliament has not laid down . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Company

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.379555

Re Elmbirch Properties Plc: LT 17 Jan 2007

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – maisonette – premium for grant of new lease – use of LVT’s own expertise as expert tribunal – value of improvements – use of single house price index rejected – price determined at pounds 12,121 – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Sch. 13

Citations:

[2007] EWLands LRA – 28 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.249406

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Oak Investments RTM Company Ltd: LT 1 Mar 2005

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – right to manage – failure to serve notice on qualifying tenant before giving claim notice – whether claim notice invalid – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 sections 78 and 79 – held claim notice not invalid – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRX – 52 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.225840

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 assisted them. The old lease would not be deemed surrendered unless the new lease was granted by deed. The defendants made a new lease, which was void: ‘It would be absurd if the same result were to be achieved as had been intended by the Agreement and which led to that Agreement being ultra vires, merely because the court has declared the Agreement void and put a notional contract of employment in its place. It would be achieving by a different means the same improper purpose, and that is something which the law cannot contemplate.’

Citations:

[1959] 1 WLR 465, [1959] 1 All ER 257

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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, . .
Cited – London Borough of Bexley v Maison Maurice Ltd ChD 15-Dec-2006
The council had taken land by compulsory purchase in order to construct a dual carriageway. It then claimed that it had left undedicated a strip .5 metre wide as a ransom strip to prevent the defendant restoring access to the road.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.191986

Hougie v Kranat: CA 26 Nov 1998

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal against the level of damages awarded to her in her claim for wrongful eviction, and against the costs award made after the award had failed to meet the amount paid into court. She said that by omitting a painting from the damages, the amount payable was reduced below the necessary figure.
Held: The point was arguable and leave should be given.

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Waller LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1860

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 27 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Hougie v Kranat CA 11-Mar-1999
The plaintiff applied for an extension of time to file her appeal having been given leave ex parte. The defendant opposed the application. She had been awarded damages for wrongful eviction, but the level of damages awarded had been less than the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.145339

Official Custodian for Charities v Parway Estates Developments (In Liquidation): CA 1985

The consideration for the grant of a lease was not a capital sum, but substantial building works. Application was made for its forfeiture.
Held: Dillon LJ assumed that the words ‘if the tenant shall enter into liquidation whether compulsorily or voluntarily’ in a re-entry clause in a lease refer to the making of the winding up order.
Save in relation to non-payment of rent, the power to grant relief from forfeiture to lessees is now exclusively contained in section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Dillon LJ said in relation to section 9(3) and (4) of the 1972 Act: ‘The question then is whether, even so, it is implicit in section 9 (4), or necessary in order to give effect to section 9 (4), that, after an official notification of an event has become fully effective, all persons must be treated as having constructive notice of that event. Three matters can be urged in support of the argument, viz.: (i) if an event has not been officially notified a company can still rely on it against a person who has actual knowledge of it, and so official notification is in a sense treated as the counterpart of actual knowledge, in enabling the company to rely on the event; (ii) during the period of grace before the official notification has become fully effective, the person concerned can prevent the company relying on the event by showing he was unavoidably prevented from knowing of the event, absence of the event being treated in the period of grace as countervailing the official notification: and (iii) it is difficult to think of the circumstances in which a company will wish to rely as against a third party on the happening of the event of its own liquidation and in which the real issue will not be the third party’s knowledge of that event rather than the happening of the event itself.
This question whether official notification of a relevant event constitutes notice of that event to all the world, is an important question. If indeed the notification does constitute notice at all, the very many landlords who are not in the habit of studying the London Gazette regularly of effecting regular searches of the files of their company tenants in the Companies registry will be at risk of inadvertently waiving the forfeiture of leases by accepting rent after the company tenants went into liquidation.
The deputy judge, after considering the wording of section 9(4) and views expressed in Palmer’s Company Law 23rd ed., vol. 1, pp. 184, 185 – 186, concluded that subsection (4) did not impute knowledge to anyone. It was essentially negative in its impact. It provided that a company cannot rely upon a relevant event if it is not in the Gazette but it did not make the positive counter proposition that a company can rely upon that event – sc. it can rely upon everyone having notice of that event – merely because it is in the Gazette. I agree with the deputy judge’s analysis of the subsection and with his conclusion.
I would add two further comments. In the first place, I do not think that the link, such that it is, in section 9(4), between official notification of a relevant event, and actual knowledge of the event if it has not been officially notified, requires that official notification should be treated as importing notice of the event to everyone. The object of the legislation is that persons dealing with a company should be officially given an opportunity to finding out important information concerning the company vis-a-vis those who have actual knowledge of the relevant event. Hence the qualification of the restriction imposed by the subsection of the company. It is not necessary to treat official notification as the equivalent of actual knowledge in all circumstances.
In the second place, among the events, other than liquidation and the appointment of a liquidator, listed in section 9(4) as events on which a company cannot rely in the absence of official notification are making of any alteration in the memorandum of association of the company, including, of course, its object clause, and the making of any change among the company’s directors. But it is plain to my mind from section (9)1 that a person dealing in good faith with a company is not to be treated as having constructive notice (as under the previous ultra vires doctrine of English law) of the terms of the company’s objects clause, whether in its original form or as from time to time altered, and is not to be treated as having constructive notice of the composition from time to time of the Old Aachener Re board of directors of the company. The tenor of the section is thus against imputing constructive notice of the relevant events to persons dealing with a company, while ensuring that they have an opportunity to find information about those events.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1985] Ch 151

Statutes:

European Communities Act 1972 9(3) 9(4), Law of Property Act 1925 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, European

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.592685

Re Webb’s Lease: CA 11 May 1951

The Court as asked ‘whether upon the true construction of the Lease dated the 11th August, 1949, and made between the Respondent of the one part and the Appellant of the other part, and in the events which have happened the Respondent is entitled, until the determination of the Lease, to use for the purpose of advertising the outer walls and if so what portions or portion of the outer walls of the property demised by the Lease without consent of the Appellant’.

Citations:

[1951] EWCA Civ 3, [1951] 2 TLR 530, [1951] Ch 808, [1951] 2 All ER 131

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262862

Peel Developments (South) Ltd v Siemens plc: 1992

A break notice was served by the tenants on a subsidiary of the landlord company. That subsidiary was found to have acted as managing agent of the property.
Held: On the evidence that the management of the property was carried out by the subsidiary, the subsidiary was the general agent of the landlord and the notice was validly served on the subsidiary.

Judges:

Paul Baker Q.C.

Citations:

[1992] 2 EGLR 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA 9-Jun-1997
Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.188162

Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited: CA 6 Nov 1998

Appeal from dismissal of claim for relief from forfeiture

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1714, [1999] 1 All ER 356, [1999] BCC 967, [1999] BCC 967, [1999] L and TR 374, [1998] EG 159, [1999] 3 WLR 229, [2000] Ch 104, [1999] 1 BCLC 670, (1999) 31 HLR 990, [1998] EGCS 159

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rayner v Preston CA 8-Apr-1881
The vendors agreed to sell a house which they had insured against fire risk. The house was damaged by fire after contract but before completion, and the issue was whether the purchaser was entitled to the benefit of the insurance.
Held: . .
Cited – Clarke v Ramuz CA 9-Jul-1891
The vendor was accused of failing to prevent a trespasser removing soil from land between exchange and completion.
Where a vendor under a contract for sale of land keeps possession until completion and payment of the purchase-money, he is in . .
Cited – Hasham v Zenab PC 19-Jan-1960
(Eastern Africa – Kenya) An accrued right of action for breach of contract is not a necessary precondition to obtaining specific performance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.145193

Mainwaring and Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 2): CA 3 Oct 1996

The tenants had sought to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. One tenant having signed an ‘irrevocable’ agreement to participate, withdrew his involvement in the purchase, and the remaining number of tenants were no longer a sufficient majority under the Act.
Held: The individual tenant’s right not to participate in the purchase of a freehold was not to be lost by contract. Each of the tenants is acting in his own interests, although the benefits sought to be obtained may vary. While the agent may be vulnerable to changes of mind, the appointment did not confer a property or security interest on him which would entitle him to insist on the now unwilling tenant proceeding.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 657, [1998] QB 1

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 6 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd HL 1940
Where a party enters into an arrangement which can only take effect by the continuance of an existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement on his part that he will do nothing of his own motion to put an end to that state of . .
See Also – Mainwaring v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 1) CA 20-Feb-1996
The claimant sought an order allowing the sale of the freehold of the building where she occupied an apartment. The trustees, when proposing to sell the building to the trustees of the Wellcome Trust, should have served notice under section 5 of the . .
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 – Smart and another v Sandars and Others CCP 12-May-1848
A factor to whom goods have been consigned generally for sale, and who has subsequently made advances to his principal on the credit of the goods, has no right to sell them, contrary to the orders of his principal, on the latter neglecting, on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.140524

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company v The King: PC 19 Feb 1931

(Canada) ‘Whether any and what restrictions exist on the power of a licensor to determine a revocable licence must, there Lordships think, depend upon the circumstances of each case.’
A licencee whose licence is revocable is entitled to reasonable notice of revocation. Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘when the exercise of the rights conferred by the licence involves nothing beyond, there can be no reason to urge against the existence of a power to determine the licence brevi manu at the will of the licensor. But the exercise of the rights may have involved the licensee in obligations in other directions which the determination of the licence would disable him from fulfilling unless the licence were determined after a notice sufficient in point of time for the making of substituted arrangements. In such circumstances the licensee would in their Lordships’ opinion be entitled to breathing space sufficient for the purpose’.

Judges:

Lord Russell of Killowen

Citations:

[1931] UKPC 18, [1931] AC 414

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Approved – Minister of Health v Bellotti CA 1944
298 blocks of flats had been requisitioned to provide accommodation for persons evacuated from Gibraltar during the war. The evacuees occupied the various flats as licensees. They were given only one week’s notice terminating their licences.
Cited – White v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.421646

Greyv Ellison: 1856

A policy of insurance was created in which one department of an insurance company purported to effect a contract with another department of the same company. Although different individuals were parties to the contract, they all contracted as agents for the company with the intention that it alone should be able to sue and be sued on the policy.
Held: The policy was a nullity. It infringed the two party rule. A company, even though it might operate different kinds of business from separate premises, cannot contract with itself. It is merely whimsical to grant a lease of one’s own property to oneself. Two agents of the same principal cannot contract with each other.

Judges:

Stuart V-C

Citations:

(1856) 1 Giff 438, 65 ER 990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners IHCS 1990
It was not possible in Scottish law for a man to grant a lease to a nominee for himself: (Lord Hope) ‘I have, as I have said, no difficulty in the concept by which the title to property and the beneficial interest are separated, the title being held . .
Cited – Ingram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
Cited – Rye v Rye HL 1962
Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his . .
Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.223768

In re New Oriental Bank Corporation (No.2): 1895

Where a tenancy continues after the insolvency of the tenant, the landlord is entitled (i) to prove for all the arrears of rent; (ii) to enter a claim for all future rent; and (iii) as rent accrues due, to submit proofs in the liquidation from time to time. ‘The proof should be admitted only for future rent, less the benefit which the landlord obtains by getting his property back again; that is to say, he is in the position of a secured creditor.’

Judges:

Vaughan Williams J

Citations:

[1895] 1 Ch 753

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In Re Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Ltd v Bairstow and Another HL 4-Feb-1999
The tenant company went into liquidation, the receiver disclaimed the lease, and the landlord claimed compensation under the Act. The question concerned how the compensation was to be calculated.
Held: Where a solvent tenant under an onerous . .
Cited – Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Limited v Bairstow and Ruddock CA 1-May-1997
If a lease is determined or treated as determined in a winding up or in a bankruptcy, the landlord is entitled to prove in principle for all the rent and other payments which he would have been entitled to recover from the tenant for the residue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.197011

10 H.7.5a: 1494

In the Common Bench a writ of waste was brought and the plaintiff assigned as waste allowing an earthwall to stand uncovered so that it was destroyed by rain-storms; and he also assigned as waste allowing another wall made of wood to decay and also in cutting down ‘silber’ trees and apple trees in an orchard.
Rede and Wood. It seems that it cannot be adjudged waste in respect of the walls for waste cannot be adjudged in respect of any thing other than something which has permanent existence, but an earthwall cannot exist for more than ten or twelve years and if something that exists for so short a time is damaged that cannot be called waste. .
Keble (to the contrary). As to the timber wall that is waste because it is part of the free tenement and the defendant may not transform the buildings leased to him but must keep them in as good a state as he received them. And if this wall had been within a building it would be waste without doubt. For if I lease a house to a man in which there are several chambers and the lessee knock down the walls which divide the chambers and turn this house into a single chamber it is waste. For the same reason that the knocking down of a wall within a house is waste the knocking down of a wall outside a house will be accounted waste. . . .
Fineux. To my understanding (and he rehearsed the reasoning of Keble) and he also understood the waste assigned in the wall to be well assigned because by its destruction the inheritance is harmed and if the inheritance is harmed by the act or the negligence of the lessor it will be accounted waste. . . .
VAVASOUR, J. To the same purpose with respect to the trees. But as to the waste assigned in the wall, none has been assigned because it appears that it was uncovered at the time of the lease and so the lessee is not obliged to cover it. For if I lease a building that is unroofed to a man for term of years the lessee is not obliged to roof it. So the waste in the wall is not well assigned.

Citations:

[1494] [Co Litt 53b (s)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.196740

Gibson v Wells: 1806

This was an action on the case in the nature of waste. The first count alleged that the defendant was a tenant for a certain term and had committed voluntary waste. It was alleged that the defendant was a tenant for a certain term and had committed voluntary waste. It was proved he was a tenant at will.
Held: Being of the opinion that dilapidations proved amounted only to permissive waste, the court nonsuited the plaintiff. Although an action on the case in the nature of waste might be maintained for commissive waste, the court had never known an instance of such an action being maintained for permissive waste only. On a motion to set aside the nonsuit, the same judge observed that if the action were maintainable, such an action might be brought against a tenant at will who omitted to repair a broken window. He thought the action was an innovation.

Judges:

Sir James Mansfield CJ

Citations:

(1805) 1 Bos and Pul (NR) 290

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.196727

Jacey Property Company Ltd v De Sousa and others: CA 28 Feb 2003

Judges:

Pill, Laws, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Mentioned – Hepworth v Pickles ChD 2-Nov-1899
The parties contracted for the sale and purchase of a shop which had been used continuously and openly with an off-licence for the sale of alcohol for twenty four years. After exchange, a restrictive covenant was revealed against the use of land as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.181126

Baxter v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Camden (2): CA 5 Nov 1998

A tenant taking a lease of defective premises could not complain of nuisance arising from that defect in the absence of contractual or statutory obligations. Poor sound-proofing between flats no nuisance where there was no sound-proofing standard applicable

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1703, [2001] QB1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance, Housing

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145182

Cadogan Estates Limited v Morris: CA 4 Nov 1998

The tenant had served a notice to purchase the freehold of the premises at pounds 100.00, a formal nominal figure. The landlord claimed that the notice was invalid.
Held: The process was one of compulsory purchase. ‘The tenant is required to specify the premium that he proposes to pay. He did not do so; he deliberately specified a figure which he did not propose to pay. I do not think the tenant is required to offer his final figure which he may be prepared to go to, but he should in my view offer a realistic figure. ‘ and ‘This seems to me to be an application of the well known elephant test. It is difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it. I think we can trust to the good sense of landlords not to make frivolous applications and County Court judges to take a robust line and not get enmeshed in hearing detailed evidence.’ The tenant’s notice was invalid.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Otton, Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1671, [1999] 1 EGLR 59

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 42, Leasehold Reform (Collective Enfranchisement and Lease Renewal) Regulations 1993 (1993 SI No 2407) 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cresswell v Duke of Westminster CA 1985
‘Where we draw the line I do not know, I doubt whether it is in anybody’s interest that I should attempt to draw that line. Many cases will answer the question on their own facts.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – 9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea CA 22-Mar-2005
The tenants offered to purchase the landlord’s freehold for andpound;210. The landlord made a counter offer to sell the freehold at andpound;130,000. The tenants argued that just as their offer had to be realistic, so the landlord’s had to be . .
Cited – Cadogan and others v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd, Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Aggio and others HL 25-Jun-2008
In each case all or part of a building was let by a head-lease and then as self-contained units under sub-leases. The head lessees had served notices under the 1993 Act requiring new leases. The freeholder denied that they were qualifying tenants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145150

Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh: CA 15 Sep 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1435

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 S2 g11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd CA 10-Aug-1994
The duty placed on a Landlord by the section is to give to the tenant a notice of an address for service for the landlord in writing. Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘what the section requires is that the tenant is told, so that he knows, the landlord’s name . .

Cited by:

See Also – Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh CA 13-May-1999
The claimant landlord had sought to assert that the let was an assured shorthold tenancy. On a rehearing, the tenant said no notice had been served under section 20. The landlord also now asserted non-payment of rent.
Held: A notice which was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144914

Sykes v Harry: CA 14 Oct 1998

The plaintiff sought damages against the defendant after he was severely injured by inhaling carbon monoxide fumes whilst a tenant of the defendant. The defendant sought to strike out the claim, saying that the plaintiff had himself maintained the fire which caused the injury.
Held: The strike out application was misconceived and failed.

Judges:

Simon Browne LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1533

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 4, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt CA 1-Feb-2001
The tenant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had suffered serious injury after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a defective gas fire. The fire had not been maintained and a fall of soot eventually prevented the escape of fumes.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145012

Lemmerbell Limited and Another v Britannia LAS Direct Limited: CA 8 Oct 1998

A break notice was served. The tenant had informally assigned the premises, and the break notice had been purported to be exercised by the assignee.
Held: The notice was invalid. ‘The present case seems to me to bear little resemblance to the type of error addressed in Mannai. There, words containing a mere slip, obvious to the reader of the notice when read in context, were construed as meaning what they were plainly intended to mean. In the present case there is no equivalent error. The break notice is not merely given on behalf of Life rather than Direct, but it contains no explanation as to why it was so given, viz Life was the successor in title to Direct. I found it impossible to see how, in these circumstances, it is permissible to construe the break notice as given on behalf of Direct.’ The notice was invalid not merely because it wrongly identified the tenant, on whose behalf it should have been served, but because a reasonable person in the position of the recipient landlord, would not have been confident that it had been served on behalf of the actual tenant.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1506, [1998] 3 EGLR 67, [1999] L and TR 102, [1998] EG 138, [1998] 48 EG 188

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Lay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144985

Personal Representatives of W R Rees Davies Deceased v City of Westminster: CA 27 Aug 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1415

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Lands Tribunal – Rees-Davies v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster LT 31-Dec-1994
. .
Leave to appeal – Personal Representatives of W R Rees-Davies Deceased v City of Westminster CA 7-May-1998
Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of claim to Lands Tribunal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144894

Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Von Goetz: CA 8 Oct 1998

A ten year shorthold tenancy agreement which was not executed under deed constituted an equitable interest, and since more than five years remained, the tenant had sufficient interest to found a claim for a council grant for renovation and repairs. The concept of an equitable term of years is well known to the law.

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1507, (1999) 31 HLR 669, [1999] QB 1019, [1999] BLGR 135, [1999] 2 WLR 582, [1998] EG 137

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 Part VIII

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Von Goetz Admn 11-Dec-1997
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Prince and Another CA 2-Dec-1998
The Borough’s tenant had died. His wife and daughter had lived with him, but the mother not for long enough to succeed to his tenancy. The daughter (aged thirteen) claimed to have done so having lived with him for three years.
Held: The 1985 . .
Cited – Alexander-David v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 1-Apr-2009
The authority was required to provide housing to the minor applicant, but she was too young to hold a legal estate. An equitable lease had been created, and she now appealed against an order for possession having broken the terms of the agreement, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144986

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Osei-Bonsu: CA 22 Oct 1998

Where one joint tenant had given notice and the landlord mistakenly excluded the other tenant, the husband, from possession, the landlord could not rely on the defence of ‘reasonable cause’. The tenant has the choice of possession or statutory damages. Statutory damages had been agreed between the parties’ representatives at 30,000 pounds. The Council now argued that the true figure should have been nil, because of the precarious nature of the husband’s rights of occupation, he being vulnerable to the giving of a 28 day valid notice to quit by the wife to the council, after which he would have no defence to eviction.
Held: The husband’s appeal succeeded. The parties should not be allowed, on appeal, to go back on their agreement as to damages.
Simon Brown LJ, said that if the point had remained open, it would: ‘have had a very considerable impact upon the damages. As at 18 June 1990, the respondent’s tenure was in the highest degree precarious, wholly dependent in law upon his wife not serving a valid notice to quit as she was clearly anxious to do. Even giving the respondent the benefit of all possible doubts as to the true extent to which his continuing rights in the property reduced its open market value, and recognising not least that he could undoubtedly have put the local authority to some expense and delay in securing the wife’s necessary further co-operation and obtaining and executing the necessary court order for possession, I would have assessed statutory damages here at no more than andpound;2,000.’
It was argued for the husband that since the notional sale contemplated by the formula in s.28(1) and (3) was deemed to take place at the time of the valuation, a purchaser from the council would have had no power to compel or persuade the wife to give a notice to quit (for example by offering her alternative accommodation), so that the husband’s tenancy was by no means as fragile as it might seem. Simon Brown replied: ‘The clear answer to this argument, I am satisfied, lies in Mr Arden’s submission that what is being valued is the interest of the landlord in default, not the abstract interest of a notional willing buyer. Although the concept of a willing buyer helps to fix the respective valuations, one postulates the landlord’s continuing ownership in fact.’

Judges:

Simon Brown, Pill, Thorpe LJJ

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-1998, Gazette 04-Nov-1998, Gazette 25-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1594, [1999] L and TR 246, (1999) 31 HLR 515, [1999] 1 WLR 1011

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 27 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Loveridge CA 10-May-2013
The Council had been found to have unlawfully evicted the respondent, and now appealed against the calculation of statutory damages awarded. It said that the court should in its valuation have allowed for the propensity for a move from a secure . .
Cited – Loveridge v London Borough of Lambeth SC 3-Dec-2014
The Council had granted a weekly secure tenancy of the premises to the appellant. The Court considered the calculation of damages awarded for an unlawful eviction of a residential tenant.
Held: Section 28(1)(a) requires the basis of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.90285

Barnes v Dowling: QBD 1881

A preliminary issue was tried as to whether the plaintiff had an estate or interest entitling him to maintain an action for waste, either voluntary or permissive, against the defendant, who was tenant for life or lives.
Held: On the basis that equity would afford no relief in an action for permissive waste against a tenant for life, and that if there is any variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law the former must prevail, decided that the action for permissive waste was not maintainable.

Citations:

(1881) 44 LT 809

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196874

Lovesy v Palmer: 1916

Solicitors for two parties corresponded and agreed for their clients about a proposed lease. The plaintiff said the agreement was to be on behalf of a company he was yet to form. The documents making up the memorandum made no mention of the company.
Held: The solicitor was not intended to be bound by the alleged contract, and therefore no evidence could be given that the he was agent of the intended company. No sufficient memorandum existed.

Citations:

[1916] 2 Ch 233, [1916-1917] All ER 1034

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson HL 19-Nov-2003
Thief acquired no title and could not sell
A purchaser used a stolen driving licence to obtain credit for and purchase a car. He then purported to sell it to the respondent, and then disappeared. The finance company sought return of the car.
Held: (Lords Nicholls and Millett . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant, Legal Professions, Company

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.188461

Lord Bernard’s Case: 1716

The Lord Chancellor’s court granted an injunction restraining a tenant for life without impeachment of waste who had committed voluntary waste of the mansion-house from committing further waste and obliging him to rebuild the mansion-house and put it into the same condition as it was in at the time of his entry, observing that the clauses of without impeachment of waste extended only to excuse from permissive waste.

Judges:

Earl Cowper LC

Citations:

24 ER 203, (1716) Prec Ch 454

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196873

Franks and Another v Towse: LT 31 Dec 1999

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Premium payable for new extended lease of maisonette – Relevant valuation date – Value of existing lease – Value of extended lease – Tenant’s surveyor expressing opinions as an advocate – Premium payable increased from pounds 3,350.00 to pounds 5,931.00

Citations:

LRA/2and31/1999

Links:

LT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.168645

Brewer v Jacobs: 1923

A proviso for re-entry in a tenancy is inapplicable to a statutory tenancy. It is concerned with the forfeiture of an existing term and can have no application after the contractual term has expired. Once the statutory tenancy has come into being, the tenant and landlord can look only to the statute creating the tenancy for protection, and not to common law principles.

Citations:

[1923] 1 KB 528

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon HL 26-Oct-2000
When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant’s bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196914

RMR Housing Society Ltd v Combs: 1951

The court considered it unnecessary to distinguish between terms and conditions of a tenancy forfeiting the tenancy on the insolvency of the tenant as to the result or effect for their breach.

Judges:

Evershed MR

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 486

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon HL 26-Oct-2000
When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant’s bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196909

Davies v Davies: 1888

A tenant for years was liable for permissive waste: ‘Actual waste, that is to say, waste committed by him, would of course render him liable to eviction; but it is said that that does not apply to a case of this kind – that a lessee for years is not liable to an action for permissive waste – that is to say, for allowing waste which has not come about by his own acts, but comes about by a revolution, or by wear and tear, or by the action of the elements, or in any other way not being his own act.’

Judges:

Kekewich J

Citations:

(1888) 38 Ch D 499

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Yellowly v Gower CEC 1855
A tenant for years was liable for permissive waste: A doubt has been stated indeed in a note to 2 Saund. 252b, whether a tenant for years is liable for permissive waste . . .These doubts arise from three cases in the Common Pleas: Gibson v. Wells 1 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196725

Countess of Shrewsbury’s Case: 1600

A tenant at will is not liable for permissive waste where confidence has not been reposed in him.

Citations:

(1600) 5 Co Rep 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Herne v Bembow 1813
The premises were demised by the plaintiff to the defendant by lease. It was an action on the case in the nature of waste.
Held: ‘Case for permissive waste does not lie against a tenant by lease, who has not covenanted to repair’. . .
Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196729

Jones v Hill: CCP 1817

The lessor granted a lease and covenanted to cause the alterations and improvements then going on under the direction of J.M., and the lessee covenanted to repair the premises and to yield them up in as good plight and condition as they should be in when finished under the direction of J.M. It was pleaded that the defendant tenant had neglected to repair the premises and had suffered and permitted them to be ruinous and yielded them up to the plaintiff so ruinous and in much worse order and condition than when the same were finished under the direction of J.M. At nisi prius, the court (Dallas J) directed a non-suit. An action upon the case could not be maintained for permissive waste. ‘Semble that case will not lie against a lessee for years for permissive waste’.
Held: the non-suit was set aside. The court would not say whether an action lay for permissive waste, ‘I do not say whether permissive waste may or may not lie, but it is impossible that it should be waste, to omit to put the premises into such repair as A.B. had put them into. Waste can only lie for that which would be waste if there were no stipulation respecting it; but if there were no stipulation, it could not be waste to leave the premises in a worse condition than A.B. had put them into. I think that is certainly not waste.’

Judges:

Gibbs CJ

Citations:

(1817) 7 Taunt 392

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196730

Sparkes v Smart: 1990

A notice to quit was served by the head landlord in collusion with the head tenant.

Citations:

[1990] 2 EGLR 245

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Mellor v Watkins 1874
Allen held a yearly tenancy of premises subject to a yearly sub-tenancy of part. The sub-tenancy was afterwards acquired by the defendant. Allen surrendered his tenancy to the freeholder who re-let the premises to the plaintiff. Neither the tenancy . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .
Overruled – Barrett and others v Morgan HL 27-Jan-2000
The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.190575

Re Panther Lead Company: 1896

There was no surrender of a lease to the landlord and the tenant’s liquidator did not have the power to disclaim the lease. In the voluntary winding up of an insolvent company the landlord sought to prove for the liabilities of the company under the lease down to the end of the term. The lease was an onerous one.
Held: The court accepted that the terms of the lease were beneficial to the landlord and, if the lease were put an end to without due compensation to the landlord, he would suffer damage. The landlord was willing for the lease to be determined on terms of being allowed to prove for the loss thereby sustained. The judge gave liberty to the liquidator to carry out that arrangement, which would enable the landlord to prove ‘at once for his loss on the footing of the lease being determined or treated as determined’. The proof was allowed and the question of the amount was to be determined in Chambers. The landlord would be able to prove for his loss and the liquidator would be able to complete the winding up.

Judges:

Romer J

Citations:

[1896] 1 Ch 978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Limited v Bairstow and Ruddock CA 1-May-1997
If a lease is determined or treated as determined in a winding up or in a bankruptcy, the landlord is entitled to prove in principle for all the rent and other payments which he would have been entitled to recover from the tenant for the residue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.197018

In re Drew (A Bankrupt): 1929

(Ireland) A tenant subject to a re-entry clause in his tenancy agreement in the case of his being made bankrupt, and who had gone bankrupt had broken an obligation of his tenancy. He was not protected from an order for possession. ‘The tenant here has broken one of the conditions of his tenancy by allowing himself to be adjudicated a bankrupt, and therefore he is no longer entitled to possession, even as a statutory tenant.’

Judges:

Johnston J

Citations:

[1929] IR 504

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon HL 26-Oct-2000
When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant’s bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in . .
Cited – Paterson v Aggio CA 1987
The Court considered whether a tenancy was a ‘protected shorthold tenancy’ within the meaning of section 52 of the Housing Act 1980 and therefore excluded from the protection of the Rent Act 1977.
Held: A power to forfeit within the minimum . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196908

Anon: 1568

Meade, Serjeant, moved this case at the bar: A man made a lease for years by indenture of a messuage and divers lands, with this clause in it, s. that if it happen the lessee to do any waste in and upon the premises, it shall be lawful for the lessor to re-enter and c. The lessee suffered the house to fall in for want of covering and repairs; Whether the lessor for this matter of negligent and permissive waste (which does not consist in feasance according to the words of the condition, which shall be taken strictly, and most strong against the lessor) may re-enter or not? And Welsh and Dyer thought prima facie that he might, for such waste is punishable by the statute of Gloucester [Marlborough, c. 23], the words of which are, ‘Vastum vendic’ seu destruction, facere de terris domibus and c.’ Also this word (any waste) is general and indifferent to either of the two kinds of waste, s. voluntary or negligent, and c. wherefore and c quaere.

Citations:

(1568) 3 Dyer 281b, 73 ER 632, Mich 10 and 11 Eliz

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196746

Sharpe v Duke Street Securities: 1987

The court considered an application for leasehold enfranchisement where a doorway had been constructed between the two ground-floor halls and the tenant of the two maisonettes occupied both together as his residence. Two residential units may constitute a single house although they were purpose-built for separate occupation and have always been in separate occupation, with no internal communication at all.

Citations:

(1987) 55 P and CR 331

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192028

12 H.8. 1: 1520

One N brought an action of waste against J, suggesting that he had cut down certain trees etc. And the defendant pleaded that he had committed no waste. Subsequently at nisi prius in the county he gave in evidence that the plaintiff had leased him a messuage with certain lands for a term of years by a deed and had granted to him that he might cut down trees to repair the house; and he also showed that the house was ruinous at the time of the lease and how he had cut down certain trees to repair it. And the plaintiff demurred on this evidence. And subsequently this was argued in the Common Bench. And
BROOKE, J. said that where one pleads the general issue in detinue or trespass or similar actions and then gives special matter in evidence which is in discharge of the action this evidence is not good nor will it support this issue and if the plaintiff demur on this evidence it is peremptory to the defendant. As for example if in debt he pleads that he owes him nothing and they join issue on this and the defendant gives in evidence a release made to him by the plaintiff he does not discharge his action in accordance with the evidence by this evidence. So too in trespass, if he pleads not guilty and gives in evidence a release; the same in battery if he pleads not guilty and gives in evidence that he acted in self-defence; the same in maintenance, if he pleads not guilty and gives in evidence a lawful maintenance; the same in an action for poaching, if he pleads not guilty and gives in evidence a licence; the same in an appeal, if he pleads not guilty and shows how he was sheriff and was carrying out his duties, or that he was a forester and killed him because he was fleeing and would not surrender. So also in waste if he pleads ‘no waste committed’ and shows that he cut down the trees to repair the house and so he has done here. But where a special evidence shows that he himself has title to the thing, that is a good evidence and will support the issue. As in the case of trespass for entering the land, if the defendant pleads not guilty and gives in evidence a lease of the same land; or in the case of trespass for carrying off goods the defendant pleads not guilty and gives in evidence a gift of them; so in waste to plead ‘no waste committed’ and to give in evidence things that show it was not waste, as where a house was burned by enemies or by lightning or that it was ruinous at the time the lease was made and fell down as a result or that a house or trees fell down as a result of wind or storm.
Then as to whether this is to be called waste and it seems not for he shows that the house was ruinous at the time the lease was made and thus he could well cut down trees to repair it. And this was not to the disinheritance of the lessor because it was to repair the house for otherwise it would decay. But if the house was rotten or ruinous at the time of the lease and the lessee agreed to repair all the houses on the land then by that deed he is bound to maintain and support them and otherwise an action of waste lies against him and he can take trees for this and it is certainly justifiable. For by the Common Law where the lessee is bound and charged with repairs and he may take trees or other necessary things such as stones that are on the land for repairs. And so at Common Law the lessee will have heybote, ploughbote, housebote and hedgebote on the land for necessary use even though that is not expressed in the lease. (This ALL THE JUSTICES agreed). But if he took more than is necessary then he will be punished in waste. And if the house is ruinous at the time of the lease or rotten or consumed and collapses within the term no action lies for this waste for the lessee is not bound to repair unless he agrees this, but he may cut trees and repair with them and justify this in an action of waste. But if the lessee of a park allows the park fence to decay to the point that the park is no longer enclosed an action of waste does lie in respect of a wall or a hedge that is ‘quickset’ and a fortiori if the lessee destroys it, as also if he allows the house to fall into decay or cuts great trees and sells them or converts them to his own use. So too if he himself burns down the house even if this is against his wishes as where others destroy or burn it an action lies. Again if the house is sufficiently repaired but burned by the king’s enemies or by lightning that is no waste. So in this case it is not waste because he did this by virtue of his lease and it was also ruinous at the time of the making of the lease and he might cut down trees at Common Law and it is justifiable. But because he did not plead justification nor plead this is in bar he has lost the advantage of this and the plaintiff will recover.
POLLARD AND ELYOT, JJ. argued like Brooke in effect.
BRUDENEL, J. If one has special matter to plead in bar but takes the general issue he may not give special matter in evidence and will never have any advantage from this and that is if the evidence is contrary to the issue as here where he pleaded ‘no waste committed’ and showed in evidence that he had committed waste but for such a purpose; now he will have no advantage of this. As if someone gives me licence to commit waste and then makes a lease to me and brings a writ of waste against me I may plead this matter but if I take the general issue I will never have advantage of this matter. Then as the other point, it seems that it is waste but not punishable. As where the reversioner cuts down trees it is waste because it is prejudicial to the inheritance but it is not punishable. So if the lessor ought to repair the house and allows it to decay it is waste but not punishable; but if the lessee is obliged to repair it then it is waste. As cutting down willows is not waste if they are growing in one place but if they are within view of a manor to shield it from the wind or on a bank to support the bank then it is waste. But in this case it was waste but justifiable. For if the lessor agrees to repair a house and refuses to do so the lessee can do so and keep back as much money as is needed and if there are trees growing there he can cut them down and use them in repair (which was agreed). But here because he has not shown this he has lost the advantage of it.
And the plaintiff had judgment to recover.

Citations:

[1520] [Co. Litt. 53a (c)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.196993

Rollason v Leon: 1861

The tenancy document, properly construed, purported to take effect as a tenancy and not as a mere agreement to grant a tenancy.

Citations:

(1861) 7 H and N 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ChD 20-Mar-1996
The parties had agreed for a lease, and the tenant entered possession, but no formal lease was executed. The tenant stopped paying rent in 1977 or 1984. He now claimed rectification of the registers to show him as proprietor. The landlord argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.263776

Absolon v Knight and Barber: 1743

A landlord’s debt to a tenant could not be set off against distress, not because rent is something special, but because distress is something special–not an action, but a remedy without action.

Citations:

(1743) Barnes 450

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.247746

Lancaster v de Trafford: 1862

The plaintiff had offered to work mines under the defendant’s land, paying a fixed rent with a royalty. No formal agreement was concluded, but the plaintiff sought specific agreement.
Held: There was no sufficient agreement and the claim for specific performance was dismissed , but in the light of the defendant’s behaviour, no costs were ordered.

Citations:

[1862] 31 LJ Ch 554

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Mundy v Hook CA 18-Jul-1997
The court was asked whether an agreement was an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the 1988 Act. The agreement incorrectly stated a date which would have terminated the secure tenancy after five not six months. There was also disagreement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223120

Rawlins v Turner: 1699

To be effective a lease by parole for three years must be for three years computed from the time of the agreement, and not from some a future date. ‘No lease by parol is good which imports to convey an interest for more than three years from the time of the making.
It was ruled by Holt Chief Justice at Lent Assizes at Kingston 1699, that such lease for three years of land, as will be good without deed within the [Statute of Frauds] . . s2, must be for three years, to be computed from the time of the agreement; and not for three years to be computed from any day after.’

Judges:

Holt CJ

Citations:

(1699) 1 Ld Raym 736, 91 ER 1392

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ChD 20-Mar-1996
The parties had agreed for a lease, and the tenant entered possession, but no formal lease was executed. The tenant stopped paying rent in 1977 or 1984. He now claimed rectification of the registers to show him as proprietor. The landlord argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223189

Graves v Weld: 1835

A lessee or his PRs may enter land even after the tenancy has come to an end to reap certain crops which were sown by the tenant during the term.

Citations:

[1833] 5 B and Ad 105

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.222679

Venetian Glass Gallery Ltd v Next Properties Ltd.: 1989

The court considered the significance of a reservation that a letter was sent ‘subject to licence’. After considering case law: ‘All three go to show that there is a distinction recognised by the law between the relationships, such as those between landlord and tenant, where there is an existing set of legal obligations between the parties and there is sought within those obligations a consent, and relations between strangers in law, as between prospective purchaser and prospective vendor, where there is no present tie and the parties are in their negotiations. I accept that there is such a distinction and I agree that one does not regard the need for a formal licence, probably under seal, as being the essential step without which there can be no effective licence, whereas of course in the case of a contract for the sale of land, apart from the difficulties created by section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, if there is no written note or memorandum of the contract, it is plainly the normal expectation of the law that until a normal contract has been signed, either by both parties or in two parts, and exchanged between the parties, there will be no legal relationship. Nonetheless, accepting that principle, it is still a question, in my view, of construction of the various letters and reading the correspondence as a whole.’

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1989] 2 EGLR 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Aubergine Enterprises Limited v Lakewood International Limited CA 26-Feb-2002
A sought confirmation that it had successfully rescinded a contract for the purchase of a leasehold property from L. Either party was to be able to rescind, if consent to the assignment had not obtained before three days before completion. There . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.221528

City Hotels Group Ltd v Total Property Investments Ltd: 6 Jul 1984

The landlords had received a request for a consent to a proposed assignment of the lease. They did not, in terms, refused consent, but had not given it notwithstanding a considerable passage of time and lengthy correspondence. The court was asked whether it had been unreasonably withheld.
Held: The landlords were unreasonably withholding their consent, and the tenants were entitled to proceed with the proposed assignment without the landlords’ consent.

Judges:

Judge Paul Bake, QC

Citations:

[1985] 1 EGLR 253

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 1999
Shopmoor’s predecessors demised premises for 150 years at a yearly rent of andpound;100 on payment of a premium. A covenant provided that the tenant was not to assign or sublet without the landlord’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or . .
Cited – Aubergine Enterprises Limited v Lakewood International Limited CA 26-Feb-2002
A sought confirmation that it had successfully rescinded a contract for the purchase of a leasehold property from L. Either party was to be able to rescind, if consent to the assignment had not obtained before three days before completion. There . .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 10-Apr-1997
The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
Held: The 1988 Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.221527

Sight and Sound Education Limited v Books etc Limited: 1999

The tenant sought compensation on the termination of his tenancy, but had vacated the premises several months before the tenancy was due to expire.
Held: He lost his right to compensation at the double rate. S37(3) required him to be in occupation for the period immediately preceding the termination of the tenancy.

Citations:

[1999] 43 EG 161

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 37(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.216655

49 E.3.2 (recte 49 E.3.1): 1375

A man brought a writ of waste against Thomas Grey of York and alleged that he held for a life term by his lease and assigned waste in respect of a house namely in a grange, a hall and a cottage.
Fulthorpe. As for the hall and the grange we tell you that they were weak and the wood rotten at the time of the lease so that they were not able to stand and so subsequently they collapsed and we ask for judgment if we are chargeable with that; as to the cottage we say that you erected it after the commencement of the lease without our agreement and ask for judgment if you can assign waste there.
Hanmer. As for the cottage we wish to prove that there was one at the time of the lease and so it is waste and ask for judgment against you; as for your allegation that the buildings were in bad repair at the time of the lease we respond that by your indenture (which we show) you agreed to repair these buildings and maintain them in as good a state and better than they were when you received them, and thus he is obliged to repair them by his own deed and we ask for judgment whether he is receivable to say that they collapsed through bad repair.
Fulthorpe. Since we have alleged that they were in bad repair at the time of the lease and that they collapsed subsequently through their weakness and this excuses us in this action of waste, as we understand. As to what you say about us agreeing to repair the buildings by our indented deed, that is something that would charge us in an action of covenant and so whatever you may say about this deed there is no law to make me answer it.
WITCHINGHAM, J. Sir, the deed which you produce shows you might have an action of covenant against him in which you would be able to recover only single damages for the breach of the covenant whereas if you were to succeed against him through this indented deed in this writ of waste you would recover triple damages, which would not be right.
And so Ham’. Do you have anything else to say to charge him in this action of waste?
Hanmer. We tell you that at the time of the lease the great timbers were in sufficiently good state and suitable and not perished and subsequently for lack of roofing in your time after the making of the lease they perished by your default. We ask that you be convicted of waste.
Hasty. He does not allege that all the timber was in good condition but speaks only of the great timbers and so what he alleges is not sufficient matter to charge us with waste.
Kirkton. It may be that the great timber was in good condition but the beams were decayed at the time of the lease and so he could not roof the buildings without the beams and was not obliged to substitute others and then roof them, and so.
Hanmer. Then we tell you that after the making of the lease the walls collapsed by his default and so the building collapsed, and thus it is waste.
Hasty. The walls had collapsed at the time of the lease and so the building collapsed since and not by our default, as we are ready etc.
The others to the contrary.

Citations:

[1375] [Co. Litt. 53a (f)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196947

41 E.3.: 1367

Waste against one alleging that he had felled certain oak trees growing in a wood and also hazels, thorns and willows only in ten acres of land adjoining the wood. He had committed waste by cutting down all the hazels, worth twelve pence each, and also uprooted all the roots and also he had felled all the thorns and willows, each worth four pence, and uprooted all the roots; also he had committed waste in one acre of land by digging and grave under the land and selling it.
Kirkton. He has counted that he has cut down etc. and also uprooted the roots of the hazels and thus he has assigned two causes of waste in a single tree and so we ask that he choose one (and this was not allowed).
Kirkton. As for the two hundred oak trees we only cut down thirty for the repair of buildings; and as for the ten acres these were full of oaks and the hazels, thorns and willows were underwood and by the deed which is here he granted us the right to cut down underwood and make our profit from it and we cut it etc. and we ask for judgment whether this is wrong. As for our uprooting of the roots he ordered us to do this and we did this by agreement etc. and so we ask for judgment; as for the acre of land etc. we tell you that we dug and grava underneath for repair of the buildings and we allowed what was over to lie on the ground without selling any of it, as we are ready etc.
FINCHDEAN, J. If you dug and gravastes more than you needed for the repair of the buildings you committed waste etc.
Kirkton. The fact is that this acre is a valley which is full of water and to drain it we dug there and put part to the repair of the buildings and we left the rest lying on the ground.
FINCHDEAN, J .That is the first you have said of that and so plead that against the other party.
And Kirkton did so.
Finch’. You sold one hundred cart-loads of this and more which you did not use for repair of the houses as we are ready etc. (And the others to the contrary). And as to the oaks he uprooted two hundred more than he used for rebuilding etc. And Finch’ as to that which you said about having uprooted the roots etc. by our assent etc. what do you have to show our assent?
Kirkton. Nothing other than your word and that is enough etc.
Finch’. We did not assent, as we are ready etc.
Kirkton. That is no issue.
FINCHDEAN, J. You should be satisfied that he has offered that averment and so accept it etc. (Implying that if he had demurred for judgment that the defendant would have been convicted of waste).
And so Kirkton says that he did assent, as we are ready etc.
Finch’. As to that which he says about that being underwood etc. we will prove that those ten acres are full of hazels, thorns and willows growing there and there are no other trees there, as we are ready etc.
Kirkton’. We are already at issue on the uprooting of the roots and if verdict is given in our favour that we who are plaintiffs did it with your assent then we will be discharged of waste done on the main trunks of the trees and so it will be in vain to take issue on the felling and so we ask to be discharged of this issue.
And the court discharged him etc.

Citations:

[1367] wast 82, [Co. Litt. 53a (k)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196939

5 R.2 wast 97: 1382

Waste where the count was that he had committed waste in ponds which he held in wardship, namely one pond which he had drained and the other in which he destroyed the fish.
Burgh. The writ does not state whether we are guardian de facto or de jure; judgment of the writ for uncertainty (and this was not allowed).
Burgh. The writ does not speak of ponds but of buildings, woods etc.; judgment of the count (and this not allowed)
Burgh. As to one pond because it was so full of reeds that we could not catch the fishes we allowed the water to run out by a pipe and took the fishes and we tell you that when the plaintiff came of age the pond was properly stocked; judgment if action etc. As to the other pond it was common and is now; judgment etc.
Clopton. We say as to the pond that you sold the fish and it is therefore waste etc. and you took more than was appropriate.
BELKNAP, C.J. Be certain that he could have taken sufficient and have left sufficient and committed no waste and have taken for his store enough as in the case of game animals in a park where even if he take for his larder if he leaves enough this will not be adjudged waste.
Clopton. How will this sufficiency be tried?
BELKNAP, C.J. If he be wise he will take his neighbours and show them in what he has found waste, will have his pond tested and show them what he has found there and then I believe that by their view it can be adjudged whether or not waste has been committed and if enough remains or not. And so you will take issue that the ponds were sufficiently stocked when he came of age and so no waste was committed etc. and the others to the contrary that he left sufficient stock at his coming of age and so issue will be taken on that.
Clopton. He has departed from his count because he declared that waste had been committed in one pond by draining it and now he is at issue on the sufficiency of fish which is another cause.
BELKNAP, C.J. I say for certain that is not waste but good and profitable for fish and necessary that a pond be allowed to dry out for one season in the year as for example one summer or in some places for a whole year because after the fry of the pike has come onto the land it likes to remain there without damage for a good while if the land is good for fish and then come from this to the bank of the water at a sufficient time for fish.
So he took issue as above.

Citations:

[1382] [Co Litt 53a (h)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196948

Lord Castlemain v Lord Craven: 1733

Both voluntary and permissive waste (suffering houses to go out of repair) were alleged against a tenant for life. The relief sought was an account and an injunction. In relation to the permissive waste, the court refused to order an account or an injunction requiring the tenant to rebuild, notwithstanding an argument that the court ought to intervene since the plaintiff had no remedy at law by reason of the intervention of another estate between the plaintiff’s remainder and the defendant’s estate for life. A court of equity never interposes in case of permissive waste either to prohibit or to give satisfaction, as it does in the case of wilful waste.

Citations:

22 ER 644, (1733) 22 Vin Abr 523, 2 Eq Ca Abr 758

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196870

40 E.3. 35 [recte 40 E.3. 25]: 1366

In a writ of waste the plaintiff counted that he had committed waste in respect of hazels and oak trees. And in respect of all except the hazels Belknap pleaded no waste committed and in respect of them he said that they were growing in a park under great oaks and were of an age to be felled and we ask for judgment whether this is to be adjudged waste.
Kirton. We tell you that there is an area in the wood where the waste is assigned and no oaks grow there and no other large trees except for hazels etc. and he has committed waste and we ask that he be convicted for the waste committed.
Belknap. Since you do not deny that they were of an age for cutting after seven years growth and were then cut since waste is that which is cut and will not grow again but underwood at the end of seven years will be as good as it was at the time of cutting and this cannot be adjudged waste where it is suitable for cutting every seven or ten years.
THORPE, C.J. You who have an estate for term of life cannot allege a prescriptive title that this is not waste.
FINCHDEAN, J. (ad idem). He has said that there were no great trees growing in that area but there was an area growing a certain quantity of wood and whatever wood that was you committed waste if you cut it down.
WITCHINGHAM, J. If the underwood is suitable for cutting every nine years a tenant in dower or tenant for life can cut it down.
But this was denied and the case was adjourned. So query.

Citations:

[1366] [Co. Litt. 53a (l)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196937

In re London and Colonial Co.; Horsey’s claim: 1868

Citations:

(1868) LR 5 Eq 561

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In Re Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Ltd v Bairstow and Another HL 4-Feb-1999
The tenant company went into liquidation, the receiver disclaimed the lease, and the landlord claimed compensation under the Act. The question concerned how the compensation was to be calculated.
Held: Where a solvent tenant under an onerous . .
Cited – Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Limited v Bairstow and Ruddock CA 1-May-1997
If a lease is determined or treated as determined in a winding up or in a bankruptcy, the landlord is entitled to prove in principle for all the rent and other payments which he would have been entitled to recover from the tenant for the residue of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.197013

43 E.3. 6: 1369

A writ of waste was brought and it was alleged that he had committed waste in lands that he held for the term of life and it was assigned that he had committed waste in respect of a grange.
Cavendish. The waste that was committed in the grange was the result of a great storm before the lease began; judgment if we have committed any wrong.
Belknap. We leased the land by indented deed (which is here) and he agreed by the same deed to repair the buildings and everything else and to maintain them during his term and to leave them at the end of his term in as good a state as when he took them; and so since he obliged himself by his own deed to maintain the buildings no plea that he has pleaded can excuse him from waste (and this was not allowed because law discharges him of waste that happens in this way because it happens by sudden chance).
Then he said that the grange was not maintained in respect of its roofing and it decayed for lack of roofing and so he committed waste etc.
Cavendish. It was well and suitably roofed as we are ready to prove etc.
The others to the contrary etc.

Citations:

[1369] [Co. Litt. 53a (g)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.196942