Category: Landlord and Tenant

Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd: ChD 7 Dec 2009

The court was asked whether rents under leases held by the company had become expenses in the administration.

Judges:

Purle QC J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

No Longer Good law – Shackell v Chorlton 1895
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401897

UK Housing Alliance (North West) Ltd v Francis: CA 24 Feb 2010

Longmore LJ said: ‘Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the 2004 Act was intended to deal (inter alia) with the notorious abuse of landlords requiring deposits from prospective tenants but not keeping the sums paid in any separate account or refusing to repay such sums at the end of the tenancy.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR and Smith LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 117

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (T/A Universal Estates) CA 11-Nov-2010
The court was asked whether, where a landlord had failed to comply with the requirement to place a deposit received with a tenancy deposit scheme within fourteen days, the tenant was entitled to the penalties imposed by the Act despite later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401796

Winwood and Another (Trustees of The E.E.Marsh Land Settlement) v Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another: ChD 19 Feb 2010

The parties disputed the interpretation of a lease of a gravel pit for waste disposal, and in particular as to the extent of planning permissions to be sought.

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 242 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401669

Fluor Daniel Properties Ltd and Others v Shortlands Investments Ltd: ChD 25 Jan 2001

Tenants occupied various parts of a modern office building. The building was provided with an extensive air-conditioning system. The landlord sought to renew the air conditioning system at great expense. The tenants claimed that the work was unnecessary. The system had been properly maintained and was not in need of repair. The landlord did not provide a service by renewing or improving plans capable of delivering such a service. Although the clauses were widely drawn, they did not allow the landlord to incur expense on plant which was in working order and capable of rendering the appropriate service. The fact that the tenants were ultimately paying for the work did not displace the landlord’s duty to make the decisions, but his decisions must still be reasonable. The short length of the leases affected the reasonableness of the request from the landlord. The fact that the system had continued to work beyond the natural life-span of such systems was a starting point, but no more. The landlord was able to recover for that work properly required.

Judges:

Blackburne J

Citations:

Gazette 25-Jan-2001, Times 21-Feb-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.80612

Akzo Nobel UK Ltd v Arista Tubes Ltd: CA 29 Jan 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of its claim for specific performance of agreements by the defendant to take underleases of factory space. The landlord’s consent was needed, both to the grant of the underleases to Arista and also to an assignment to Arista of the headlease. Akzo was to use all reasonable endeavours to procure the consents. Arista went into possession under a licence, and so stayed for eight years. Although it made efforts to do so, Akzo was unable to obtain the Consents or an assignment to itself of the headlease until 13 December 2007. Arista had served notice on Akzo to terminate the agreement by a notice 30 October 2008 pursuant to paragraph 11: ‘If by [31 December 1999] all Property Consents shall not have been obtained in respect of any Business Property then either the Seller or the Purchaser may, by three months notice in writing to the other, terminate on the date of expiry of that notice, the obligations of the parties hereto in respect of that Business Property . . (but without prejudice to antecedent breach) in which event the Purchaser shall vacate the Business Property in question by the end of such notice period.’
Held: The court observed the absence of a dispute that Arista was entitled to serve the notice on Akzo on 30 October 2008. Mummery LJ said of the notice: ‘It was not a notice to complete the parties’ transaction by giving Akzo a last chance and by setting a deadline for it to take a transfer of the lease and to obtain the Property Consents. It was a notice to terminate the parties’ contractual obligations, a provision which enabled either party to escape from obligations in relation to the Premises. Such a notice could be served by either party if Akzo had not obtained the Property Consents by the stipulated date. The obligations which could be terminated included Arista’s obligation to pay a fee for its licence to occupy the Premises. One would not normally or reasonably expect that, in the absence of express provisions in the [agreement] or fresh agreement between the parties, a notice terminating the parties’ obligations, once given, could be unilaterally revoked or reversed or that, as [counsel for Akzo] strongly contends it has no legal effect on the parties’ obligations before the notice has expired. In my view, the immediate effect of the notice was that there was no longer any obligation on Akzo to use reasonable endeavours to obtain Property Consents or an assignment of the lease, or on Arista to take underleases of the Premises.’
Mummery LJ continued: ‘It is common ground that the notice provision must be construed as a whole, in its context and in its ordinary and natural meaning. As I read paragraph 11 the parties clearly agreed that, if the Property Consents had not been obtained by 12 months after the date of the [agreement], they were entitled to serve notice in writing terminating the parties’ obligations in respect of the Premises. Arista’s obligations included the obligation to take the underleases, as well as its obligation to pay the fee under the Licence Agreement. On service of the notice the position of the parties was that Arista would have to vacate the Premises by the end of the notice period and it would cease to be under an obligation to pay the licence fee, or to be under an obligation to take the underleases of the Premises. The language of the paragraph does not allow Akzo to reverse or vary that position on Arista’s obligations, such as by obtaining the Property Consents at any point down to the expiration of the notice. The obligation to take the underleases did not arise before the notice was given and the purpose of giving the notice was to prevent it from ever arising subsequently, given that Arista would be bound to vacate the Premises by the expiry of the notice period.’

Judges:

Mummery, Richards LJJ, Sir David Keene

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Irwin v Wilson and Others ChD 23-Feb-2011
The claimant sought a declaration that his contract for the sale of leasehold property to the defendants had been lawfully terminated by a letter from his solicitors. The defendants had moved in before completion, but the claimant found himself . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396407

Van Dal Footwear Ltd v Ryman Ltd: CA 3 Dec 2009

The defendant tenant had occupied an old building under a lease requiring it to keep the property in repair and to yield it up in repair. The parties now disputed the damages awarded after it had been yielded up in disrepair.

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P, Jacob LJ, Lewison LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1478, [2010] 1 All ER 883, [2010] L and TR 18

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396417

Southall Properties Ltd v Marya: CA 27 Mar 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 890

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Marya v Southall Properties Ltd CA 27-Mar-2001
Application to re-reinstate an application for permission to appeal . .
See Also – Marya v Southall Properties Ltd (Re-instatement application) CA 27-Mar-2001
. .
See Also – Southall Properties Ltd v Marya CA 1-Mar-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.218082

First Tower Trustees Ltd and Another v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd: CA 19 Jun 2018

Grant of lease, but property badly contaminated with asbestos.
The Court recognised a principle of ‘contractual estoppel’ – whereby parties can bind themselves by contract to accept a particular state of affairs even if they know that state of affairs to be untrue

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1396, [2019] 1 P and CR 6, [2019] 1 WLR 637, [2018] WLR(D) 376, 178 Con LR 35

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.618376

Community 1St Oldham (Chadderton) Ltd v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council: TCC 14 May 2015

Community sought declarations as to various matters arising out of a Lease Plus Agreement under which the Chadderton Health and Well Being Centre a community centre with facilities including a swimming pool and a library, was provided to the Defendant.

Judges:

Sir Vivian Ramsey

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1263 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.546823

Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others: CA 9 Oct 1990

The claimants had taken an assignment of leasehold premises. They sought to recover for building defects.
Held: The assignment was effective to transfer to Linden Gardens the causes of action for subsisting breaches of contract by M and H and Ashwell Construction and that the assignee could recover such damages as Stock Conversion could have recovered had there been no assignment.

Judges:

Nourse and Staughton LJJ and Sir Michael Kerr

Citations:

(1992) 57 BLR 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.407775

Raymere Ltd v Belle Vue Gardens Ltd: CA 17 Jul 2003

Tenants of a block of flats sought enfranchisement. The landlord said the notices were defective in that the office copies supplied did not show the entitlement of the persons giving notice at the relevant time.
Held: The scheme for collective enfranchisement must apply with equal rigour to unregistered and registered land. The consequence of non-compliance with a section 20 notice is that no further initial notice can be given in respect of the same premises for another twelve months. That indicates that the requirement to deduce title is more an administrative or procedural requirement than a requirement to prove conclusively that the tenant has a good title in law as at the relevant date. Less than perfect compliance should not defeat a notice.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker And Mr Justice Holman

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 996, Times 14-Aug-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 20, Leasehold Reform (Collective Enfranchisement and Lease Renewal) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/2407) 2, Land Registration Act 1925 110(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.184620

Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others: CA 6 Jul 1994

A disclaimer of a lease on insolvency of the tenant leaves the original Tenant and his Security or guarantor liable as well as any intermediate assignees. ‘In order to determine these rights and obligations it is necessary, in the nature of things, that the landlord’s obligations and rights, which are the reverse side of the tenant’s rights and obligations, must also be determined. If the tenant’s liabilities to the landlord are to be extinguished, of necessity so also must be the landlord’s rights against the tenant. The one cannot be achieved without the other. Disclaimer also operates to determine the tenant’s interests in the property, namely the lease. Determination of a leasehold estate has the effect of accelerating the reversion expectant upon the determination of that estate. The leasehold estate ceases to exist.’

Citations:

Ind Summary 18-Jul-1994, Times 06-Jul-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others HL 22-Feb-1996
The guarantor of an original tenant under the lease remains liable after the disclaimer the lease on insolvency. The disclaimer operates to determine the lease altogether with the result that the landlord’s reversion is accelerated. ‘In order to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.81390