Category: Landlord and Tenant

Naidu v Yenula Properties Ltd: CA 23 May 2002

This was a second appeal, this time by a former tenant and was as to whether a tenancy was a shorthold tenancy or otherwise. The judge had found that the tenancy commenced in 1995, and no notice of shorthold tenancy having been given, it was an assured tenancy. The case was appealed to the High Court. At a late stage disputes emerged as to the sequence of events and as to adequacy of service of notices. The appeal judge had criticised the judge’s findings. A notice from the tenant could be served on the landlord’s agent, but a landlord’s notice had to be served on the tenant, and not his agent. That rule was not strict, but there is no rule that a lawyer had implied authority to accept such notices. In the absence of such express authority, the notice was invalid, and the tenancy was an assured tenancy.

Judges:

Lord Justice Robert Walker Lord Justice Rix And Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

Gazette 04-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 719

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988, Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (S1 1988 no.2203)

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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Legal Professions

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.172238

Lord Falconer of Halkerton v David Lawson: HL 23 Feb 1778

Lease – Ambiguous Clause. – A clause in a lease of fifty-seven years, bound the tenant ‘to renounce at Lammas, before the expiry of the first nineteen years, or prorogue the same for three years, in the option of the said Lord Halkerton, and the said David Lawson.’ Held, in an action of removing brought against the tenant, that this did not import an option that might be exercised by the landlord alone. Reversed in the House of Lords, and held it an option which either landlord or tenant might use singly and alone.

Citations:

[1778] UKHL 6 – Paton – 799

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.562019

St Mary’s Mansions Ltd v Limegate Investment Co Ltd, Sarruf and others: CA 11 Oct 2002

The tenants under long leases, paid a service charge. The Landlord kept the excess in a reserve fund, though no proper mechanism existed for this in the lease. The tenants requested its repayment, claiming that under the 1987 Act, the fund was held in trust. The landlord sought to use the fund to pay its legal expenses.
Held: It was wrong to hold money paid for one purpose, for another unspecified purpose, and the excess was to be repaid. The landlord was not able to charge his legal expenses to the fund.

Judges:

Lords Justice Ward, Mummery and Jonathan Parker

Citations:

Gazette 24-Oct-2002, Gazette 07-Nov-2002, Times 13-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1492, [2003] 1 EGLR 41

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.177492

Enterprise Inns Plc v The Forest Hill Tavern Public House Ltd and Others: ChD 21 Oct 2010

The defendants, tied tenants of the claimant, sought to defend applications for forfeiture of their leases saying that the claimant’s terms and beer prices were not set in good faith at reasonably competitive levels.

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2368 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425382

31 Cadogan Square Freehold Ltd v Cadogan: UTLC 16 Sep 2010

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – whether price enhanced by value potentially available from a reconversion of the relevant building into a single house – extent of the additional value potentially realisable from such a reconversion – extent of risks regarding ability to obtain vacant possession and carry out such redevelopment including whether planning permission would be needed and (if needed) would be granted – how such risks would affect a properly advised hypothetical purchaser – nature of such a hypothetical purchaser and of the advice he should be assumed to act upon – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 section 61 and Schedule 14

Judges:

Judge Nicholas Huskinson

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 321 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425235

Staunton v Kaye and Another: UTLC 9 Aug 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – proceedings transferred to LVT from county court – LVT remitting case to county court on basis that it had no jurisdiction – whether demand on which claim based was in respect of service charges – held that it was – held that LVT had jurisdiction – whether failure to give notice of landlord’s name and address – held no such failure – consultation requirements – dispensation granted – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s 18, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s 47, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Sch 12 para 3 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 270 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 47, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425234

Peverel Om Ltd v Wernick: UTLC 12 Aug 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – appeal by way of review – LVT determined the reasonableness of various service charge items – whether LVT failed to give adequate reasons to the prejudice of the landlord – whether LVT failed to take account of relevant evidence – whether LVT misunderstood certain evidence – appeal allowed in part – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s27A

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 271 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425233

Modi, Re 5 Brentview House: UTLC 5 Oct 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – payments on account – use of a reserve fund – loans to service charge account by landlord – legal fees- cost of paying insurance premium by instalments – management charges – ss 20B and 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 346 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B 20C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425243

Southern Housing Group Ltd and Another, Re Ada Lewis House and Princess of Wales Court: UTLC 15 Jul 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether charges payable under leases within definition – whether amount payable might vary according to cost of providing services – held that charges were within definition – appeals dismissed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s 18(1)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 237 (LC), [2011] L and TR 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425225

Manchester Airport Plc and Another v Radisson Hotel Manchester Ltd and Another: ChD 23 Nov 2020

Preliminary issue about the meaning of the expression ‘prevailing commercial rates’ in a clause of a lease in respect of business premises incorporating a hotel at Manchester Airport.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 3739 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.657806

Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd: ChD 1 Apr 1998

The plaintiff was tenant of premises under a lease granted by the defendant’s predecessor in title. He vacated the premises in July 1996, and on 17 November 1997 wrote asking the defendant for a licence to sublet them to a pet shop business. The plaintiff enclosed the proposed subtenant’s accounts with the application. On 20 November 1997, the defendant, by telephone, indicated that consent would not be forthcoming because the pet shop use was inappropriate for the location and would diminish the value of the defendant’s interest in the premises, and that the accounts were not strong enough. There was further discussion between the plaintiff and the defendant before, on 15 January 1998, the defendant confirmed that it was not prepared to grant consent. The defendant relied on the two reasons that it had previously given. The plaintiff claimed declarations that the defendant had unreasonably withheld its consent to the subletting, and that in the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to sublet the premises to the proposed subtenant.
Held: The landlord’s failure to state in writing why consent to the assignment applied for was being withheld, made his refusal of consent unreasonable, despite there being otherwise possible good grounds for such a refusal. He was not able later to put forward reasons not advanced at the time. ‘In other words, if the landlord does not within a reasonable time give his reasons for refusing consent in writing, then it is not open to him to rely on those reasons in court for justifying his withholding of consent. If Sir Richard Scott V-C. is correct, then a landlord, who has given reasons in writing for refusing his consent, cannot, when subsequently seeking to justify his refusal of consent, rely on reasons which he has not given. If that is right, then in a case where a landlord gives no reasons for refusing consent, it would seem very odd if he could subsequently rely on reasons which he had in his mind but had not specified. Therefore it seems to me to follow that the policy of the Act of 1988 is that a landlord who has not given his reasons for refusing consent within a reasonable time cannot thereafter justify his refusal of consent by putting forward any reasons even though he had them in his mind. Given that the Act specifically requires consent or refusal of consent in writing, I find it hard to see how one can resist the conclusion that, if I am right so far, reasons given orally are not sufficient. To put it more succinctly, the logic of Sir Richard Scott V-C’s observations and decision in the Norwich Union case is that, construing the covenant together with the Act of 1988, it is not now open to a landlord to put forward reasons justifying the withholding of consent if those are reasons which were not put forward in accordance with section 1(3)(b), that is they were not reasons which were put forward in writing within a reasonable time. Mr Jones says, with some force, in relation to the facts of this case, that that produces an unfair result. The defendant made it clear what his reasons were and the plaintiff was in no doubt about them. I accept that, in this case, my conclusion might be perceived as wreaking something of an injustice on the defendant. However, as the Vice-Chancellor emphasised, the purpose of the Act of 1988 was, among other things, to introduce a degree of certainly, ie to enable parties to know where they stood. What was said in oral conversations can be the subject of fundamental and genuine dispute. Even in this case, where there is a substantial measure of agreement between the parties so far as what was said, there are small disputes which could have been significant, namely whether consent was clearly and genuinely refused and whether reasons were given. The advantage of the conclusion of principle I have reached is that, once one requires any refusal with reasons to be in writing, the court can be in no real doubt as to whether and when refusal was given and the reasons on which the refusal was based. Landlords on the whole should be aware of their obligations under the Act of 1988. I appreciate that there are many small, individual landlords. However, Parliament has taken the view that if the landlord wishes to object to an assignment for underletting, he must make his position clear within a reasonable time, and, in my judgment, he must make it clear in writing.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Gazette 01-Apr-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 551

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 1 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss CA 1982
When considering whether to give consent to an assignment of a lease, the landlord need consider only his own interests.
Slade LJ said: ‘I find it rather more surprising that, when the landlords came subsequently to question the validity of . .

Cited by:

Approved – Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and Another CA 31-Jan-2003
The tenant applied for a licence to assign the lease under section 1. The landlord refused consent, but the parties continued to negotiate. The tenant argued that the landlord’s continuation of negotiations showed the earlier counter-notice to have . .
Cited – Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited ChD 25-Feb-2004
The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal.
Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, and was an act . .
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 – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2004
The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting.
Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80625

O’Donoghue v Enterprise Inns Plc: ChD 29 Sep 2008

The tenant sought to appeal against an arbitration award as to his rent. He said that the arbitrator should have allowed him an oral hearing.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the fact that the Arbitrator might have come to a different conclusion if there had been an oral hearing does not begin to establish that the Arbitrator was not acting fairly and impartially as between the parties. Second, as already noted, the Act expressly gives the Arbitrator a discretion on whether to hold an oral hearing. Third, the Arbitrator in his letter of 22nd November invited Mr O’Donoghue to set out his case as to why he wanted an oral hearing. Mr O’Donoghue failed to do this.’

Judges:

Behrens J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2273 (Ch), [2008] EWHC B15 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 68

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd Harrison QBD 14-Jul-2005
The court set out the principles applicable in an application under section 68: ‘a) Perhaps the best summary of the applicable principles relating to section 68 generally, which lies at the heart of these applications is by His Honour Judge Humphrey . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.276680

Octavia Hill Housing Trust v Brumby: QBD 15 Jul 2010

Appeal against an order of HHJ Gibson who heard applications by the defendant/appellant to strike this claim out, under CPR 3.4.2 as disclosing no reasonable grounds and/or for summary judgment under CPR 24.2(a) as enjoying no real prospects of success. Apart from striking out the claim for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment he dismissed both applications.

Judges:

MacKay J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 1793 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421267

Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Expeditors International (Uk) Ltd: CA 24 Jan 2007

Leases contained break clauses which the tenant purported to exercise. The landlord replied that they were ineffective because the tenant had not complied with his repair covenants. The dispute appeared settled after negotiations, and the settlement was embodied in an agreement. The tenant did not vacate the premises in time, and the landlord said the break clauses had not been exercied, and now appealed a finding that the settlement had varied the leases.
Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. The settlement agreement did nothing expressly to vary the terms of the lease, but focussed on the condition of the premises. The works agreed to be done included however works of re-instatement applicable only at the end of the lease period, and the sum agreed to be paid included a sum attributable to loss of rent. The term implied met the appropriate tests. Lloyd LJ (dissenting) Whilst this would leave an odd position if the lease did not terminate, it was not one lacking business efficacy, and the implied clause failed the officous bystander test.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bairstow Eves (Securities) Ltd v Ripley CA 1992
The lease conferred on the tenant a right to break the leases on notice ‘if the tenant shall perform and observe all the covenants and obligations herein on the tenant’s part contained’. It had failed to repaint the premises during the year before . .
Cited – Fitzroy House Epworth Street (No. 1) Ltd and Another v Financial Times Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The defendant tenant sought to exercise a break clause in the lease. The landlord said that the notice was deficient because the tenant had failed ‘materially to comply with’ its repairing obligations. The judge found the cost of repairs were . .
Cited – PW and Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD 8-Aug-2003
The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .
Cited – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd CA 1939
The court warned against the over-ready application of any principle to justify the implication of terms into a contract. McKinnon LJ set out his ‘officious bystander’ test: ‘If I may quote from an essay which I wrote some years ago, I then said: . .
Cited – Philips Electronique v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd CA 1995
There is a presumption against adding terms to a contract. The presumption is stronger where the contract is in writing and represents an apparently complete bargain between the parties. Sir Thomas Bingham MR set out Lord Simon’s formulation, and . .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Cited – The Moorcock CA 1889
Unless restricted by something else, an employer ought to find work to enable a workman to perform his part of the bargain, namely, to do his work. A term will be implied into a contract only to the extent required to give the contract efficacy: ‘if . .
Cited – Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales 1982
(High Court of Australia) Mason J said: ‘The implication of a term is to be compared, and at the same time contrasted, with rectification of the contract. In each case the problem is caused by a deficiency in the expression of the consensual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.248019

Factors (Sundries) Ltd v Miller: CA 1952

The tenant seeking and being granted forfeiture was legally aided and the court was precluded by statute from making an order for costs against him.
Held: There was nonetheless jurisdiction to require him to pay the landlord’s costs as a condition of being granted relief from forfeiture. A In a case where relief against forfeiture is granted, where appropriate it may be ordered that the tenant pay the landlord’s costs, even on a solicitor/client basis as a condition of relief.
Somervell LJ explained that the liability under such a condition was ‘not an order to pay costs in the ordinary sense’, but ‘a payment of a sum equal to the costs as a condition of relief’.

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1952] 2 All ER 630

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and Others SC 6-Mar-2013
Daejan owned the freehold of a block of apartments, managing it through an agency. The tenants were members of a resident’s association. The landlord wished to carry out works, but failed to complete the consultation requirements. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.471752

Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co- Operative Ltd: CA 15 Jul 2010

The Society ran a mortgage rescue scheme, buying properties from borrowers unable to maintain mortgage repayments, and letting them back. As a co-operative, the former owners would become members. Because it was a mutual housing co-operative, the tenancy had no security beyond the 1977 Act. The appellant fell behind with her rent, but denied that the provisions of the tenancy agreement would allow the landlord to recover possession in this way, saying that it operated as a lease for life. The court at first instance had applied the LRB case to support the grant of possession.
Held: Mummery and Aikens LJJ considered that they were bound by the authority to make the possession order, but Wilson LJ held that the contractual limitation on Mexfield’s right to determine the Agreement was enforceable by Ms Berrisford.

Judges:

Mummery, Wilson, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 811, [2010] 2 EGLR 137, [2011] 2 WLR 423, [2010] HLR 44, [2010] 29 EG 87, [2010] L and TR 25, [2011] PTSR 236, [2011] Ch 244

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Berrisford ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant appealed against refusal of a summary order for possession of the defendant tenant’s house for arrears of rent. The arrears arose through delay in payment of Housing Benefit, and all arrears had been cleared by the hearing of the . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body and Others HL 16-Jul-1992
The parties signed a memorandum of agreement to let a strip of land from 1930 until determined as provided, but the only provision was that the lease would continue until the land was needed for road widening and two months’ notice was given. The . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420767

Leek and Moorlands Building Society v Clark: CA 1952

The court was asked whether one of two joint lessees could validly surrender the lease before the full period of the lease had run without the concurrence of the other joint lessee.
Held: Somervell LJ was in favour of the defendant lessees: ‘Counsel for the plaintiffs sought to rely on Doe d. Aslin v. Summersett as supporting a submission that Mr. Ellison, by what he did, had brought the joint tenancy to an end. That case was dealing with a lessee from year to year of land which he held from two joint lessors. A notice to quit was served signed by one only of the joint lessors. It was argued that the other lessor had adopted the notice, but Lord Tenterden, who delivered the judgment of the Court of King’s Bench, held that without any such adoption a notice to quit by one of the joint lessors, who were joint tenants, put an end to the tenancy as to both.
The ratio of the decision is, we think, to be found in the following sentence: ‘Upon a joint demise by joint tenants’ – that is, the lessors in that case – ‘upon a tenancy from year to year, the true character of the tenancy is this, not that the tenant holds of each the share of each so long as he and each shall please, but that he holds the whole of all so long as he and all shall please, and as soon as any one of the joint tenants’ that is, the lessors in that case – ‘gives a notice to quit, he effectively puts an end to that tenancy.’ It is to be noted that Lord Tenterden was dealing with a notice to quit in respect of a periodic tenancy. He was not dealing with a right to determine a lease for say 21 years at the end, say, of the seventh or fourteenth year.
Nor was he dealing with surrender.
There is, we think, force in the submission made on behalf of the plaintiffs, that in the case of a periodic tenancy Lord Tenterden’s principle would apply when there were joint lessees. A periodic tenancy continues from period to period unless the notice agreed or implied by law is given. But if one of two joint lessees who ‘hold the whole’ wishes it not to continue beyond the end of a period, it might well be held that it did not continue into a new period. That would happen only if all, that is, the joint lessees, shall please.
If one considers a lease to joint lessees for a term certain with a right of renewal, it would be obvious, we think, that both must join in requiring a renewal. A periodic tenancy renews itself unless either side brings it to an end. But if one of two or more joint lessees does not desire it to continue, we would have thought that it was in accordance with Lord Tenterden’s principle, and with common sense, that he should be able to make that effective.’
He continued: ‘Even if we are wrong in what we have said with regard to a right to determine within the period of the lease as distinct from a right to terminate a periodic tenancy, we would have thought it plain that one of two joint lessees cannot, in the absence of express words or authority, surrender the rights held jointly. If property or rights are held jointly, prima facie a transfer must be by or under the authority of all interested. The answer suggested to this is the principle laid down in Doe d. Aslin v. Summersett. That case, for reasons which we have given, is not in our view an exception to the rule we have just stated. It is an illustration, in a highly technical field, of the general principle that if a joint enterprise is due to terminate on a particular day, all concerned must agree if it is to be renewed or continued beyond that day. To use Lord Tenterden’s phrase, it will only be continued if ‘all shall please.”

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 788

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Doe d Aslin v Summersett KBD 1830
Majority of Trustees May Exercise Power
The freehold in land which was let on a yearly tenancy was vested jointly in four executors of a will to whom the land had been jointly devised. Three only of the executors gave notice to the tenant to quit. The fourth objected.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk HL 5-Dec-1991
One tenant of two joint tenants of a house left and was granted a new tenancy on condition that the existing one of the house, still occupied by her former partner, was determined. She gave a notice to quit as requested, the council claimed . .
Cited – Greenwich London Borough Council v McGrady CA 1982
A notice to quit given by one of two joint tenants without the consent of the other was effective to determine the periodic tenancy to which it related.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘In my judgment, it is clear law that, if there is to be a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.272273

Montrose Court Holdings Ltd and Another v Shamash and others: CA 21 Feb 2006

Tenants challenging power of freeholders to impose parking regulations on occupiers of development. The landlord appealed.
Held: ‘the regulations in the present case – which limited the right to park to the parking of one vehicle at a time – were proper regulations to make. They were regulations which can be seen as necessary if all those having the right to park on the service road are to be able to enjoy that right in orderly competition. ‘ The appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 251

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 62(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Saeed v Plustrade Ltd CA 20-Dec-2001
The court considered a parking management scheme imposed by freeholders on an estate. The result would be to reduce the number of parking spaces from 13 to 4.
Held: (Sir Christopher Slade) ‘The lease in terms conferred upon the lessee ‘the . .
Cited – Hare v Gilman and another 2000
. .
Cited – Wright v Macadam KBD 1949
The court considered the exceptions to the rule that a right in fact enjoyed with property will pass on a conveyance of the property by virtue of the grant to be read into the conveyance by virtue of section 62. One exception was if the right was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.239181

Homebase Ltd and Another v Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc: CA 17 May 2002

The tenant held land under a lease restricting the terms of any underletting. It wanted to sublet part, but could find no tenant who would take the terms. It sought to let the property in a sub-lease which complied formally with the head-lease but was accompanied by a side letter giving better terms personal to the tenant. The landlord objected. The tenant claimed damages fro failing to give consent, and now appealed an order dismissing its claim for damages.
Held: The landlord was within its rights to refuse the consent. The two documents had to be read together (AGG Securities). When this was done, the proposed underlease did not met the requirements. The fact that the arrangement was personal to this tenant made no difference. The rights of the tenant to a new underlease created risks for the landlord which he was entitled to take into account.

Judges:

Lords Justice Simon Brown, Chadwick and Hale

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 666, [2002] 27 EG 144, [2003] 1 P and CR 75

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.172229

William Hill (Southern) Limited v Cabras: CA 1986

The tenant had affixed a sign to the premises with the landlord’s consent. The new landlord said that any licence was revocable. The judge had held that the lease had specifically granted a right to exhibit the signs.
Held: The landlord’s appeal was dismissed. The right to maintain the signs was in the demise of the appurtenances to the demised premises, and ‘together with the appurtenances thereto in clause 1(a) could not, in the context of the present lease, be treated as mere surplusage. Bearing in mind the permitted use of the premises and the practical and commercial considerations, it was to be supposed that the appurtenances included the right to maintain the signs. That view was not invalidated by clause 3 which did not refer to appurtenances as such and which made express exception to the rights specifically granted by the lease. Further, applying the general principle that the grantor shall not derogate from his grant, the court would not construe a general provision, most of all an exception in very general terms, such as that in clause 3, to take away that which had already been granted in the dispositive provisions of the lease.’
Nourse LJ said: ‘There was some debate as to whether it could be said that the appurtenances were specifically granted on the ground that the word is an entirely general one. However, I do not think there is much in that point. The appurtenances were clearly granted expressly and I think that is enough, particularly when the general principle to which I now come is borne in mind.’ and
‘Mr Sparrow submits that the court will not construe a general provision in a lease, particularly an exception and most of all an exception couched in very general terms such as those in clause 3, so as to take away with the other hand that which has already been granted by the one hand in the dispositive provisions of the lease. Although Wheeldon v Burrows was a case on implied rights, I accept Mr Sparrow’s proposition with regard to the construction of express rights, it being, as Thessiger LJ said, consonant to reason and common sense and also, I would add, to the commercial realities of a case such as this.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1986] 54 PandCR 42

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Paragon Finance plc v City of London Real Property Co Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2001
The claimants were underlessees of an office building. The offices had enjoyed a right of light for over a hundred years, and the freehold had acquired an easement of light by lost modern grant. The roadway having been closed, the defendant head . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.267164