Category: Landlord and Tenant

Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd: CA 30 Apr 2002

The tenant had a lease of business premises. The premises were damaged in a terrorist attack, and the landlord served a notice terminating the lease. The lease gave the right to the landlord to determine the lease if the property was incapable of occupation for more than six months. It came to be accepted that the property was not fit for occupation. The tenant said he had not been served with the notice, not having actually received or seen any of the notices.
Held: Hard as it may be the landlord had complied with the statutory requirements, and those in the lease. Notice is not the same as knowledge. The notices served by post were effective. A notice attached to the outside of a building from which the tenant had been excluded might not be adequate. The words of the statute were clear and simple, and should not be complicated. Though in occasional cases this might lead to unfair advantage, the statute must be applied.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 573, [2002] 2 EGLR 29, [2002] PL SCS 112

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 196, Interpretation Act 1978 7, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 23(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Galinski v McHugh 5-Oct-1988
A landlord’s notice under section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 had been served on the tenant’s solicitors, who had confirmed that they had authority to accept service. Later the tenant challenged the validity of the service.
Held: . .
Cited – Scholl Manufacturing Co Ltd v Clifton (Slim-Line) Ltd CA 1967
The question was whether a landlord could exercise a right to break a lease by serving a notice under section 25 of the Act, which provides for termination of a tenancy by the landlord.
Held: If a notice is served on an occupying tenant in . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank Ltd v Betchworth Investments Ltd CA 1975
The court considered service of a notice at a lessee’s last known address. The landlord’s notice exercising its right under the break clause was sent to an address which ‘was no longer in existence; the building had been demolished; and the envelope . .

Cited by:

Cited – Beanby Estates Ltd v Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Ltd ChD 9-May-2003
The landlord had served a notice under the 1954 Act. The tenant served a counter notice, but the question was whether he was late, or out of time.
Held: The combination of the various provisions meant that the landlord’s notice had irrevocably . .
Cited – C A Webber (Transport) Ltd v Railtrack plc CA 15-Jul-2003
A notice served under s25 of the 1954 Act, being sent by recorded delivery to the tenant at its place of abode, was irrebuttably deemed to have been served on the day it was posted. Section 23 of the 1927 Act operated to disapply section 7 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.170227

Rosebery Ltd v Rocklee Ltd and Another: ChD 20 Jan 2011

The tenant of an apartment on the top floor of a building said that the lease included the empty roof space above him and that accordingly the landlord had not been able to let that space elsewhere.

Judges:

Strauss QC DJ

Citations:

[2011] EWHC B1 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428425

Hemphurst Ltd v Durrels House Ltd: UTTC 5 Jan 2011

UTTC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – acquisition of land and rights – acquisition of leasehold interests – interpretation – nominee purchaser with right to acquire leasehold interest – whether required to acquire totality of leasehold interest – whether entitled to chose to acquire only part of leasehold interest – appeal allowed – Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.2.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 6 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428145

240 Waterloo Quay Waterloo Road – Liverpool : Northern : Manchester: LVT 8 Jun 2015

Service Charges

Citations:

[2015] EWLVT MAN – LV – SVC – 00BY – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – 240 Waterloo Quay Waterloo Road – Liverpool : Northern : Manchester LVT 18-Nov-2008
Service Charges . .
See Also – 240 Waterloo Quay Waterloo Road – Liverpool : Northern : Manchester LVT 8-Jun-2015
Service Charges . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.557451

240 Waterloo Quay Waterloo Road – Liverpool : Northern : Manchester: LVT 18 Nov 2008

Service Charges

Citations:

[2008] EWLVT MAN – LV – SVC – 00BY – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 240 Waterloo Quay Waterloo Road – Liverpool : Northern : Manchester LVT 8-Jun-2015
Service Charges . .

Cited by:

See Also – 240 Waterloo Quay Waterloo Road – Liverpool : Northern : Manchester LVT 8-Jun-2015
Service Charges . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.437136

London Borough of Hackney v Findlay: CA 20 Jan 2011

An application had been made to set aside a possession order obtained by a social landlord and determined by a district judge who applied CPR3.1 (7), when setting the possession order aside. By the time the landlord’s appeal against that decision was heard, the decision in Forcelux was available and the circuit judge held that while it was a matter for the discretion of the court whether to apply the requirements of CPR 39.3 to an application under CPR 3.9, the district judge was not required to take into account whether Mr Findlay had acted promptly or had a good explanation for not attending the hearing or had a reasonable prospect of success at trial. The court was asked whether the matters listed in CPR 39.3(5) are highly relevant factors to be taken into account when the court is asked by a tenant to exercise its discretion to set aside a possession order made in his absence.
Held: The court should normally apply the provisions of Rule 39.3(5) by analogy, even if they do not strictly apply in a case where judgment was given at a hearing which was not a ‘trial’.
Arden LJ said: ‘Thus in my judgment, in the absence of some unusual and high compelling factor as in Forcelux a court that is asked to set aside a possession order under CPR.3.1 should in general apply the requirements of CPR 39.3 (5) by analogy. This is in addition to, and not in derogation of, applying CPR.3.9 by analogy, as this court did in Forcelux as that provision requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances in any event. However, in my judgment, for the reasons given above, in the absence of the unusual and compelling circumstances of a case such as Forcelux this court should give precedence to the provisions of CPR39.3(5) above those enumerated in CPR.3.9.’

Judges:

Arden, Wilson, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 8, [2011] HLR 15, [2011] NPC 7, [2011] PTSR 1356, [2011] CP Rep 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 39.3(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mountain v Hastings CA 16-Apr-1993
The tenant disputed the effect of a notice to quit. Paragraph 3 of the form read: ‘The landlord intends to seek possession on grounds . . in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, which reads: Give the full text of each ground which is being relied on. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pritchard and Others v Teitelbaum and Others ChD 20-Apr-2011
The claimants sought orders allowing them to re-enter the tenanted properties after eviction in order to allow them recover their possessions left behind. Proceedings for recovery of possession had continued over several years.
Held: The . .
Cited – Grimason v Cates QBD 26-Jul-2013
The claimant tenant appealed against frfeiture of her leas saying that she had not received any notices. The parties disputed whether the addresss was the usual or last known address, and also that the forfeiture gave the landlord an unjust . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.428065

Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others: CA 11 Mar 2008

Applications between consortium members as to management of apartment block.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘ . . an appellate court should not interfere with case management decisions by a judge who has applied the correct principles and who has taken into account matters which should be taken into account and left out of account matters which are irrelevant, unless the court is satisfied that the decision is so plainly wrong that it must be regarded as outside the generous ambit of the discretion entrusted to the judge.’

Judges:

Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 427

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others ChD 29-Nov-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others ChD 7-May-2008
Further case management in substantial case after additional pleadings. . .
See Also – Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and Others v Fattal and Others CA 8-Apr-2009
The parties had been involved in serial disputes regarding the management of leasehold apartments. It was now objected that the current case was an abuse of process.
Held: The appeal against the stay succeeded. The new case had been flagged up . .
Cited – Allen v Cornwall Council QBD 20-May-2015
The claimant was injured riding his bicycle, and alleged failure by the respondent highway authority. The court now considered an application for leave to appeal against an order allowing the production of evidence of an expert in cycling skills and . .
Cited – BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.267356