Category: Landlord and Tenant

Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and Others: ChD 4 Apr 2007

Land at Wembley stadium had been sold to the defendants and leased back. The defendant assigned the freehold within the group, declaring that the lease was held in trust for the original freeholder. The claimant now said that the defendant assignee was not entitled to claim the service charge.
Held: There had been an estoppel by convention which entitled the landlord to claim payment of the service charges.

Judges:

Chancellor of the High Court

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 756 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Schalit v Joseph Nadler Ltd CA 1933
Mr Nadler was a lessee of property, part of which he sublet to the plaintiff. In 1931 he made a declaration of trust, under which he declared that the property was held in trust for his company, Joseph Nadler Ltd. Shortly after the company purported . .
Cited – A Property Company v HM Inspector of Taxes SCIT 5-Oct-2004
SCIT SCHEDULE A – income from land – whether agreements for lease gave rise to an immediate right to rent or whether the right was conditional on obtaining the landlord’s consent to subletting – whether the . .
Cited – Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and . .
Cited – Cleve House Properties v Schildof 1980
. .
Cited – Capital and Counties Freehold Equity Trust Ltd v BL plc ChD 1987
The court construed the word ‘incurred’ in a lease to be synonymous with ‘expended’ or ‘become payable’. . .
Cited – The Earl Cadogan, Cadogan Estates Limited v 27/29 Sloane Gardens Limited, Wayil Mahdi LT 7-Apr-2006
LT Service Charges – Construction of Lease – Recovery of notional rent of Caretaker’s flat – Presumption against recovery of sums exceeding expenditure – Clear words needed. . .
Cited – Gilje and others v Charlgrove Securities Ltd CA 4-Oct-2001
The court was asked as to the liability of five underlessees to pay the rent for a caretaker employed by the landlord. The lease envisaged a caretaker living in the building. Previously the caretaker had been paid a larger wage but had then paid a . .
Cited – Plough Investments Ltd v Manchester City Council 1989
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and others CA 29-Aug-2007
The court was asked whether the assignee of the reversion of the lease of Wembley stadium was entitled to demand payment of service charges.
Held: There was no basis for challenging the finding of an estoppel by convention, the tenant having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.251171

Neville v Cowdray Trust Ltd and Another: CA 5 May 2006

The applicant claimed the right to purchase the freehold reversion for her home. The defendant said it was not held under a low rent so as to qualify, since the rent exceeded the rateable value as assessed. The rating list had been altered meantime from the two cottages to one combined listing.
Held: Looking at all the words of the statute, and applying Dixon v Allgood, the landlord’s appeal succeeded. May LJ: ‘the effect of the application of section 25(1) of the 1977 Act to the ascertainment of the rateable value of the property is to direct attention to the hereditament or hereditaments whose rateable value is shown in the valuation list. For section 4A(2)(b), the rateable is that of ‘the property’, not of ‘the house’ or ‘the house and premises’. At the date of the commencement of the tenancy, the property here consisted of ‘more than one such hereditament’, that is more than one hereditament ‘for which a rateable value [was] then shown in the valuation list’. The property, therefore, had a rateable value which was not nil at the commencement of the tenancy. The rateable value was the aggregation of the rateable values of the two hereditaments then shown in the valuation list – pounds 42, and the rent of pounds 100 was not less than two-thirds of this rateable value.’

Judges:

May LJ, Latham LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 709, [2006] 1 WLR 2097

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Dixon v Allgood HL 1987
The applicant tenant occupied property originally a pair of semi-detached derelict cottages and six acres of land. He successively reconstructed each cottage, initially living in one of them and sub-letting the other; constructed a five door garage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.242278

Pirabakaran v Patel and Another: CA 26 May 2006

The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A tenancy for mixed purposes falls under the protection of the Act of 1954, provided that there is continued occupation for business use, and the phrase ‘let as a dwelling’ in s.2 of the Act of 1977 means ‘let wholly or partly as a dwelling’ and so applies to premises which are let for mixed residential and business purposes. The phrase had a statutory history which implied this meaning: ‘Their meaning cannot in my view have fluctuated with the tides which have ebbed and flowed in this court in relation to the meaning of the phrase in other contexts. ‘ There was a requirement to give the tenant his article 8 rights, and ‘an interpretation of s.2 of the Act of 1977 which prohibits a landlord from exercising – otherwise than by proceedings in court – an alleged right of re-entry upon premises let for use as a dwelling as well as for business purposes is an interpretation which would be compatible with the tenant’s rights under article 8; and, by contrast, that the opposite interpretation of it would be incompatible with them.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 685, Times 17-Jul-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 3112

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 2, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920, Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1915, Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1939 3(3), Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, European Convention on Human Rights 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Epsom Grand Stand Association Ltd v Clarke CA 1919
Premises on a racecourse were let to the defendants in part as a public house, and to occupy the other part themselves. The court was asked whether this was a letting of ‘a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling . . and every such . .
Cited – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
Mentioned – Hicks v Snook CA 1928
The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
Mentioned – Regina v Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal Ex parte Slaughter CA 1954
. .
Mentioned – British Land Co. Ltd v Herbert Silver (Menswear) Ltd CA 1958
The court may look to the circumstances surrounding the grant of a lease, and then if necessary the user, to see its purpose, if it is not clear from the lease. . .
Cited – Hicks v Snook CA 1928
The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
Cited – Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .
Cited – Pulleng v Curran CA 1980
The question was whether under the 1977 Act the tenant occupied the premises for residential purposes. The landlord said that a business was also conducted from them.
Held: The tenant had failed to establish that the business use had ceased. . .
Cited – Cheryl Investments v Saldanha CA 1978
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business.
Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of . .
Cited – Webb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet CA 1988
The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the . .
Cited – National Trust for Places of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty v Knipe and Knipe CA 15-May-1997
The tenancy was of an agricultural holding, with protection under the 1986 Act. It had 350 acres of pasture, and two farmhouses. The tenants covenanted not to use the holding for any purpose other than agriculture, to farm it in accordance with the . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Cited – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – Billson and Others v Residential Tenancies Ltd HL 12-Dec-1991
Relief from forfeiture was available against a landlord who had peaceably re-entered property subject to a tenancy without a court order. Such a landlord was still ‘proceeding’ to enforce his rights of forfeiture until he obtained a judgment for . .
Cited – Farrell v Alexander HL 24-Jun-1976
The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant CA 20-Dec-2006
The respondent had taken a tenancy of premises from the local authority. The ground floor was for use as a shop, and the first was residential. He had previously taken a licence and had refurbished the premises. The authority sold the freehold to . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.242218