Category: Landlord and Tenant

Elsden v Pick: CA 1980

Waiver or estoppel preventing reliance upon terms of lease. The court upheld an agreement between parties to waive the strict requirements of a notice after it had been served,

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 898

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v Jackson (T/a Jackson Flower Company) CA 16-Jul-1997
The defendant appealed an award of pounds 11,000 damages for unlawful eviction of his tenant. The tenant had found herself unable to pay the rent and had given notice to quit. She was then told to leave immediately. The judge awarded statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.196696

Brewer Street Investment v Barclays Woollen Co: CA 1953

A prospective tenant for whom a landlord had carried out alterations on the premises was not permitted to break off negotiations for the lease solely to escape liability for the cost of such alterations. Lord Denning said: ‘What, then, is the position when negotiations go off without the default of either? On whom should the risk fall? In my opinion the prospective tenants ought to pay all the costs thrown away. The work was done to meet their special requirements and was prima facie for their benefit and not for the benefit of the landlords. If and in so far as the work is shown to have been of benefit to the landlords, credit should be given in such sum as may be just. Subject to such credit, the prospective tenants ought to pay the cost of the work, because they in the first place agreed to take responsibility for it; and when the matter goes off without the default of either side, they should pay the costs thrown away. There is no finding here that the work was of any benefit to the landlords, and in the circumstances the prospective tenants should, I think, pay the amounts claimed.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1954] 1 QB 428, [1953] 2 All ER 1330

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Becerra v Close Brothers ComC 25-Jun-1999
ComC Claim for fee for introducing successful bidder at a controlled auction – no express contract – no implied contract based on City practice – claim for quantum meruit failed because no express or implied . .
Cited – Countrywide Communications Limited v ICL Pathway Ltd 1996
The court considered the authorities bearing on the question of whether or not a claim under a quantum meruit can successfully be made for work done in anticipation of a contract which does not materialise. Strauss J concluded: ‘I have found it . .
Mentioned – MSM Consulting Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania QBD 30-Jan-2009
The claimants sought commission or a quantum meruit for the part they had taken in finding a suitable site for the defendant’s High Commission in London.
Held: The works undertaken were consistent with the claimant seeking work from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.245319

Hallisey v Petmoor Developments Ltd: ChD 7 Nov 2000

The landlord had reserved to himself responsibility for repair of the fabric of the building. The top floor included demises of roof gardens, but the same roof gardens necessarily played a considerable part in protecting the tenants from rain and the elements. In the circumstances therefore, the landlord remained responsible for repairs to the roof terrace gardens.

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81178

Havant International Holdings Ltd v Lionsgate (H) Investment Ltd: ChD 8 Dec 1999

Two leases were given in similar terms to similarly named companies. An officer of one company by mistake gave notice to break the leases for each company but using the same name, and also when he was not a director of one of the companies. The notices were effective. The test was not what the landlord actually thought, but what objectively would be thought by a third party. A third party would have seen the mistake.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81280

JT Developments v Quinn and Another: CA 1990

The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out improvements in reliance on that assurance.
Held: The plaintiff was bound to grant the lease in question. It is not open to the court to impose an agreement because it would have been reasonable for the parties to agree or because, if the importance of an immediate agreement had been more clearly understood at the time, the parties might well or probably have so agreed.
Referring to the AG of Hong Kong case, Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘In that case, there was express use of the phrase ‘subject to contract’ and its effect was fully understood by both sides. In this case there were no such words. The right, however, not to proceed with negotiations for the contract exists independently of the use of that phrase, which is required, normally, in circumstances where an express agreement in writing is apparently reached which would constitute an enforceable agreement but for the use of that phrase.’

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 EGLR 257, (1990) 62 P and CR 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Attorney General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd PC 1987
An agreement in principle was marked ‘subject to contract’. The Government would acquire some flats owned the plaintiff Group of companies in return for the Government granting, inter alia, a lease to the Group of some Crown lands. The Government . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hussein Walji, Zulikar Walji, Mohammed Iqbal Walji, Hussain Walji v Mount Cook Land Limited CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants sought a new lease under the Act. They were assignees and sureties of an underlease of the premises, but a new underlease had been taken by a company through which the partnership had intended to trade. The partnership had paid rent in . .
Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
Cited – Willis v Hoare 1999
Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be . .
Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
Cited – Thorner v Major and others HL 25-Mar-2009
The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract, Land

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.184138

Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another: CA 26 Feb 1986

The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be tenants with protection.
Held: The tenants’ appeal against summary orders for posession were successful, and the cases remitted to the county court for trial. Though such matters dealt largely with the legal assessment of dicuments, that assessment was here against a disputed factual background.
Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘As I understand the reference to the sham nature of the obligation,’ namely that of sharing the room in common with other persons nominated by the landlord, the House of Lords is there saying, first, that the agreement in that case constituted the grant of exclusive possession; secondly, that the written obligation to share the room was not effective to alter the true nature of the grant; and thirdly, that, on the facts of the case, it should have been clear to the Court of Appeal that the landlord cannot have intended the term as to sharing occupation to be a true statement of the nature of the possession intended to be enjoyed by the ‘licensees.”

Judges:

Purchas LJ, Ralph Gibson LJ, Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1986] EWCA Civ 1, [1986] 1 EGLR 80, [1986] 52 PandCR 204, [1986] 18 HLR 265, [1986] 278 EG 618

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shell-Mex v Manchester Garages CA 1971
The defendant was allowed to go into occupation of the plaintiff’s premises solely for the purpose of selling the plaintiff’s brands of petrol and the defendants undertook to use every endeavour and due diligence to sell and foster the sale of the . .
Cited – In Re Carne’s Settled Estates 1899
A right to occupy for life, arising by settlement gives to the occupier an equitable interest in the land. . .
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 – Allan v Liverpool Overseers 1874
The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Henderson v Law CA 1985
Griffiths LJ discussed the bringing of cases for possession under the summary procedure provided by Order 113: ‘There will obviously be cases in which, although proceedings are started by way of a summary procedure it quickly becomes apparent that a . .
Cited – Shah v Givert 1980
If a landlord seeks to recover possession of property under Order 113, he must take the risk that if the defendant raises an arguable case that he has a tenancy, the matter must go to trial. . .
Cited – Marchant v Charters CA 1977
Lord Denning MR considered the difference between a tenant and a licensee: ‘What is the test to see whether the occupier of one room in a house is a tenant or a licensee? It does not depend on whether he or she has exclusive possession or not. It . .
Cited – Greater London Council v Jenkins 1975
A landlord is entitled to use the summary proceedings under Order 113 if he can demonstrate his right to do so, and the court has no discretion to deny such use merely on the grounds that the proceedings are rapid and summary and that the defendants . .
Cited – Bradley v Baylis CA 1881
The tenant of two rooms, which he took unfurnished at a weekly rent, had the exclusive use of such rooms and a key of the outer door of the house. His landlord had also a key of the outer door, and resided in all the rest of the house, but supplied . .
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – Errington v Errington and Woods CA 19-Dec-1951
There was a contract by a father to allow his son to buy the father’s house on payment of the instalments of the father’s Building Society loan.
Held: Denning LJ reviewed the cases and said: ‘The result of all these cases is that, although a . .
Cited – Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe CA 1957
The trustees of a tennis club took possession of tennis courts and a clubhouse under a lease, and sought a new lease under the 1954 Act. The landlord said that they were only licensees and in any event were not entitled to a new lease since they . .

Cited by:

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: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.245285

Hilton v James Smith and Sons (Norwood) Ltd: CA 1979

A landlord may be under a positive duty to his tenants to prevent obstruction of a right of way.

Citations:

(1979) 251 EG 1063

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Westminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.259565

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 relation to the loss suffered by the tenant.
Held: ‘I accept that the damages do seem to be high, but I have to warn myself against using any knowledge that I may have gained in other ways to support that view, and I am quite unable to say that the judge was at fault. If we were to interfere on this ground, it could only be on the basis of sending it back for a rehearing designed to enable [the landlord] to call valuation evidence. It is not clear to me why he should have a second opportunity to call valuation evidence when he had the opportunity originally and did not choose to avail himself of it.’ Section 27(2): ‘provides for similar treatment [to s 27(1)] where there is what might be described as constructive eviction of the residential occupier as contrasted with an actual eviction, namely, conduct which is such that the occupier cannot reasonably be expected to remain, although physically he or she could remain, and the occupier accordingly gives up his occupation of the premises.’ It is inappropriate to grant interest upon damages awarded under the 1988 Act.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 378

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v Jackson (T/a Jackson Flower Company) CA 16-Jul-1997
The defendant appealed an award of pounds 11,000 damages for unlawful eviction of his tenant. The tenant had found herself unable to pay the rent and had given notice to quit. She was then told to leave immediately. The judge awarded statutory . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.196698

Ellis v Torrington: CA 1920

An assignment of the benefit of a covenant in a lease held to be sufficiently connected with enjoyment of the property as not to be a bare right of action. The assignment was not void.
Scrutton LJ stated that the assignee of a cause of action was not guilty of maintenance or champerty by reason of the assignment he took because he was buying not in order to obtain a cause of action but in order to protect the property which he had bought.

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1920] 1 KB 399

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
Appeal by the Defendant from a judgment on an application for summary judgment under RSC Order 14 by the Plaintiffs, Camdex International Ltd judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs in the sum of Kuwaiti Dinars 20,595,557.429. The Plaintiffs pleaded . .
Cited – Barbados Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA 27-Feb-2007
The creditor had assigned the debt, but without first giving the debtor defendant the necessary notice. A challenge was made to the ability of the assignee to bring the action, saying that the deed of trust appointed to circumvent the reluctance of . .
Cited – Simpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust CA 12-Oct-2011
The court was asked whether it was possible to assign as a chose in action a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury, and if so under what circumstances it was possible.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant did not have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.249317

Bass Holdings Ltd v Morton Music Ltd: CA 1987

The tenant had the option to take a further lease on giving written notice of their desire ‘if it shall have . . performed and observed the several stipulations on its part to be performed and observed up to the date of [the notice]’. The question was whether the clause required the reading that past or spent breaches of covenant would preclude the exercise of the option. Bass Holdings Ltd claimed against Morton Music Ltd for breaches of covenant.
Held: Morton Music’s appeal succeeded. The court reviewed the authorities.
Kerr LJ: ‘(1) The first question is whether, on the true construction of the proviso in question, the absence of any material breaches of covenant by the defendants is a condition precedent to the exercise of the option, as well as the giving of the requisite notice purporting to exercise the option. Generally, and admittedly in the present case, the proviso contains a double condition precedent, viz. (i) the absence of any material breaches of covenants and (ii) compliance with the requirement as to notice.
(2) That, however, leaves the crucial question whether the condition precedent (i), that there must be no material breaches of covenant by the defendants, applies to spent as well as to subsisting breaches. This question is covered by dicta in numerous cases, going back in particular to Grey v. Friar (1854) 4 H.L.Cas. 565, and by the decision of Clauson J. in Simons v. Associated Furnishers Ltd. [1931] 1 Ch. 379.
The upshot of these authorities is that spent breaches will not destroy the tenant’s right to exercise the option, but subsisting breaches will. As shown by the passages to which I refer below, the reasoning is in effect as follows. First, it must be accepted that absolute and precise compliance by the tenant with every single covenant throughout the period of the lease prior to the operative date is virtually impossible of attainment. If this were required as a condition precedent, then the option would in practice be worthless or merely at the mercy of the landlord. Therefore the parties cannot have intended that the absence of spent breaches should be a condition precedent. Secondly, however, it is natural and sensible that the landlord should require the tenant not to be in breach of any covenant on the operative date and that all outstanding claims for breach of covenant should have been previously satisfied, so that the lease is then effectively clear. The proviso is therefore to be construed as intended to apply to subsisting breaches, with the result that the relevant condition precedent is the absence of any subsisting breach.’
Nicholls LJ: ‘With such a clause the commercial purpose achieved by a condition construed as meaning ‘no subsisting breach’ is readily apparent: before the lease can be ended prematurely all the rent due must have been paid, the property must have been put into a proper state of repair, and the other covenants must have been observed and performed in the sense that all liability in respect of any previous breaches must be at an end. What commercial purpose, in such a case, would be served by the ‘never any breach’ construction of the condition precedent is not so readily apparent.’ and ‘The two alternative constructions have only to be stated for it to be apparent that the ‘never any breach’ construction would mean that in practice the condition would be impossible of fulfilment in almost all cases of leases of buildings containing a full range of repairing and other covenants by a tenant. However diligent or even punctilious a tenant may be in carrying out his obligations under his lease, in such cases there will in practice inevitably be occasions when there will be outstanding some dilapidations which would, strictly, constitute breaches of the repairing or redecorating covenants. Thus the practical consequence of the ‘never any breach’ construction in such cases would be that the break or renewal option would seldom, if ever, be exercisable by a tenant.’ and ‘Even in the case of other leases, where the tenant’s covenants might be less far reaching, this construction would lead to much uncertainty for tenants and their assigns. Break options and renewal options may be valuable but, on this construction, after a few years and particularly if there have been assignments or sub-lettings, the current tenant or a would-be assignee of a lease would be unable in many cases to discover whether or not a break option or a renewal option had already lapsed by reason of a breach of covenant. Indeed, short of a positive answer from a co-operative landlord, it is difficult to see how in this type of situation a tenant or would-be assignee could ever be sure that there had not been a breach, maybe trifling, of one covenant or another in the history of the lease’.
Bingham LJ: ‘Where a tenant wished to take advantage of a break clause, the landlord was not greatly concerned with the history of the tenant’s performance before the break. The worse the tenant’s performance, the readier the landlord might reasonably be to get rid of him. But whatever the tenant’s defaults in the past, the landlord would be very much concerned that at the time of the break the rent should be fully paid (because he could no longer distrain) and the covenants fully observed (so that the property could be re-let or sold without delay or additional expenditure).’

Judges:

Kerr, Nicholls and Bingham LJJ

Citations:

[1988] Ch 493

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Grey v Friar 1854
Coleridge J: ‘the covenants must have been strictly kept, or, if broken, must have been satisfied for. So understood, the words import a condition precedent neither impossible nor unreasonable; and where that is clearly the case, the mere difficulty . .
Cited – Simons v Associated Furnishers Ltd 1931
Buildings were let for a term of 17 years. The tenant had the right to terminate the lease after the first five or ten years of the term if it gave notice to that effect and if it ‘shall up to the time of determination . . perform and observe the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Littman and Another v Aspen Oil (Broking) Ltd CA 19-Dec-2005
A lease had been granted with a break clause, which the tenant exercised. The Landlord said it had not complied with its obligations and was not free to exercise that clause. The clause had included the word ‘landlord’ where it should have read . .
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 – 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 . .
Applied – Trygort (Number 2) Ltd v UK Home Finance Ltd and Another SCS 29-Oct-2008
The landlords claimed that the tenants remained bound under the lease to occupy and use the premises and pay rent. The tenant said that it had exercised a break option. The landlord said that the break was not exercisable because it had otherwise . .
Cited – JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council CA 12-Mar-2010
The tenant had applied to the landlord for consent to assign certain leases. The court had declared the right to exercise break clauses in certain leases as lost. The court had found the right to be lost after the assignment of the leases by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.236552

Bass Holdings Ltd v Lewis: CA 29 Jul 1986

The appellant, Mr Lewis had been granted a tenancy by the appellant on its standard terms. Notice was given to terminate the tenancy. The tenant appealed against a ruling that he had not acquired a tenaancy for 90 years under the 1925 Act.
Held: The appeal failed.
Nourse LJ analysed the section: ‘First, the word ‘determinable’ is capable of meaning ‘liable to determine’ and no more. It does not necessarily also mean ‘determinable by notice’ or by some other positive act.
Second, it seems to me to be very important to pay attention to the prepositions which are used in the two parts of the subsection. In describing the leases to which it is to apply, the subsection refers to leases determinable with life or lives, or on the marriage of the lessee. That suggests that it is referring to leases which will determine automatically, in the one case on death and in the other on marriage. By contrast, when you get to the provision dealing with the new lease, you find that it is to be determinable by notice after the death or marriage as the case may be of the lessee. That is a distinction which I do not think can be ignored and it is further emphasised by the terms of proviso (c).
Third, the contrast between the use of the word ‘determinable’ simpliciter in the first part of the subsection and the reference to determinability after the death or marriage by notice in the second conclusively confirms that in the first part ‘determinable’ does not mean determinable by notice.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR, Nourse, Glidewell LJJ

Citations:

[1986] EWCA Civ 2, (1986) 280 EG 771, [1986] 2 EGLR 40

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 149(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.245286

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 year tenancy for the bankruptcy of the tenant, was not to be taken to mean it was not a shorthold tenancy. ‘although on a strict construction’ it could be said that ‘the requirement not to become a bankrupt was not an ‘obligation’ on the tenant’, this would defeat the plain intention of the legislature. ‘ and ‘if a tenant under the terms of the tenancy agreement with which we are concerned went bankrupt, this must amount to a breach by him of an obligation or a term or condition of the tenancy and, in the context of the Rent Acts, would entitle the landlord to possession under Case 1 of Schedule 15 to the 1977 Act.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[1987] 2 EGLR 127

Statutes:

Housing Act 1980 52, Rent Act 1977 Sch 15 C 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

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, Housing

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.196910

Malpas v St Ermin’s Property Ltd: CA 1992

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 EGLR 109

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – 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: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.192025

Hannon v 169 Queen’s Gate Ltd: ChD 23 Nov 1999

A letting scheme created a restriction on new building within the scheme, but was so phrased as to be descriptive not prescriptive, and the landlord was free to subdivide surrendered flats. In the absence of clear words to the contrary the landlord was free to build up above existing buildings. The restriction affected only development on a horizontal plane.
CS Bernard Livesey QC: ‘. . . the courts are reluctant to imply a term where, as here, there is a long and complex legal document drawn up by the lawyers in which the parties have crystallised the terms of their relationship. The conditions that must apply before the courts will imply a term in these circumstances were set out by Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernpoint) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1978) 52 ALJR 20 at p26 and repeated by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Philips Electronique Grand Public SA v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [1995] EMLR 472 at p481 as follows:
for a term to be implied, the following conditions (which may overlap) must be satisfied: (1) it must be reasonable and equitable; (2) it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it; (3) it must be so obvious that ‘it goes without saying’; (4) it must be capable of clear expression; (5) it must not contradict any express term of the contract.
To this, the defendant has suggested that a sixth principle has been added by Hughes v Greenwich London Borough Council [1994] 1 AC 170, that the courts would imply a term into a contract only where there was a compelling reason for doing so, which I accept, although it seems to me that this may simply be another way of looking at Lord Simon’s second condition.’

Judges:

Bernard Livesey QC

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 EGLR 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81222

Heathrow Airport v Forte (UK) Ltd and Others: ChD 11 Feb 1998

The dominant position held by a Landlord for the provision of space for services and his imposition of a differential charge was insufficient to justify a claim of abuse of position. The provision of catering services to airlines at Heathrow Airport was of a local character necessitated by ‘the need for flexibility and the need for the food to be as fresh as possible’. The defendants had not shown even an arguable case that trade between Member States was affected to an appreciable extent. The trade’s local character was not affected by the fact that three customers were airlines incorporated in other Member States. The expression ‘Euro-defences’ must not be treated as a pejorative term.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins QC

Citations:

Gazette 11-Feb-1998, [1998] EuLR 98

Statutes:

Treaty of Rome 1957 Art 80 Art 90

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, European

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81298

Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others: CA 20 Oct 2009

The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the controls. There was no evidence of this having been done for payment.
Held: The Authority’s appeal failed. It depended on eliding a distinction between the allocation policy and the grant of a tenancy: ‘what happened in each of the present cases was a breach of the statutorily prescribed procedure for selecting an applicant to be a secure tenant of available accommodation, not a purported disposal by way of the grant of a secure tenancy other than in accordance with statutory requirements . . the fact that the anterior public law procedural requirement of compliance with the Scheme was not complied with by no means necessarily means that the subsequent grant of a tenancy was invalid.’

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1080

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 79, Housing Act 1996 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Credit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council CA 20-May-1996
Builder’s Guarantee Ultra Vires LA
The council set out to provide a swimming pool using powers under s.19 of the 1976 Act. Purporting to use powers under s.111 of the 1972 Act, it set up a company to develop a site by building a leisure pool and time-share units, with a view to . .
Cited – Stretch v West Dorset District Council CA 10-Nov-1997
A local authority has no ability to grant an option to renew a lease, even though it has the power to grant a lease and would benefit from the wrongful grant. The land was held for an express statutory purpose and was not ‘corporate land’ within the . .
Mentioned – Ahmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme . .
Cited – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-May-2008
The applicant and his wife were secure joint tenants of a house of a local authority under section 82. Their marriage broke down, and the applicant’s wife moved out of the house with the two children of the marriage. She returned after obtaining a . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v A CA 23-Jul-2002
The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority’s housing policy. Collins J said: ‘Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot . .
Cited – Islington v Uckac and Another CA 30-Mar-2006
The council’s tenant had unlawfully secured assignment of a secure tenancy to the defendant. The council sought possession.
Held: A secure tenancy granted by an authority pursuant to a misrepresentation by the tenant is nonetheless valid. The . .
Cited – Stretch v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under . .
Cited – Smith (Kathleen Rose) v East Elloe Rural District Council HL 26-Mar-1956
The plaintiff challenged a compulsory purchase order as unlawful and made in bad faith and sought damages for trespass. Paragraph 16 provided that an order could not be challenged by legal proceedings, save in the circumstances identified in . .
Cited – Akinbolu v Hackney London Borough Council CA 13-May-1996
The fact that a secure tenant was an illegal and an overstaying immigrant and therefore should not have been granted a tenancy, gave no right to the council as landlord summarily to evict him. . .
Cited – Boddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376204

Forcelux Ltd v Binnie: CA 21 Oct 2009

Forcelux and Mr Binnie were the landlord and tenant of a flat in Lincoln. Under the lease, the tenant was obliged to pay ground rent and other charges. The lease contained a forfeiture provision in the event of non-payment of rent or charges. Mr Binnie fell into arrears and Forcelux obtained a default judgment against him. No payment was made following the judgment and so Forcelux served a notice on Mr Binnie under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and section 81 of the Housing Act 1996. There was no response to that notice and so Forcelux commenced proceedings for possession. By that time Forcelux had received no payment from Mr Binnie for over 2 years and had heard nothing from him for 12 months. The claim form gave an address for Mr Binnie as required by Rule 6.6 (2); it was the address of the flat. When the hearing date was fixed, the court attempted to serve the proceeding by post but the envelope was returned ‘Gone Away’. This was because, for some time passed, Mr Binnie had not been living in the flat. He was in fact then living with his girlfriend in another flat in the same building and had not collected any documents relating to the case from the flat.
The landlord appealed against the setting aside of his order for possession. The long residential lease provided for forfeiture for non-payment of ground rent or charges. The possession order was set aside and relief from forfeiture given on terms as to payment of arrears.
Held: Where the court makes a possession order in the absence of the tenant, following forfeiture of a lease for non payment of the ground rent, and the tenant subsequently applies to have the order set aside, the rule which is of relevance is CPR 3.1 (2). This is because, when the tenant does not appear at the hearing, there is no trial.
Warren J said: ‘Where a defendant does not appear at all, the test of the judge is entirely straight forward and routine once he is satisfied that service has been properly effected. He looks at the evidence and having no material which would suggest that the defendant has a case at all, let alone one which is genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial, he makes an order for possession.
I do not consider that such a process of determination and decision can sensibly be called a trial as a matter of the ordinary use of the word. Nor do I consider that it is being seen as a trial within Rule 39.3; the word is not to be given some special and wider meaning in the context of that Rule. Rather it can be seen more as a summary procedure in the sense of the procedure being carried out rapidly with the omission of most of the steps which in an ordinary case lead to trial it also has a lot in common with a disposal hearing as referred to in the PD Part 26 which I have already described, and which is clearly not a trial either in the ordinary sense of the word or in the context of the CPR’

Judges:

Ward, Jacob, Warren LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 854, [2010] CP Rep 7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146, Housing Act 1996 81, Civil Procedure Rules 39.3 55.5, County Court Act 1984 138

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire and Another CA 4-May-2006
The defendants appealed a decision that they had no sufficient reason for not attending court on the day of the trial.
Held: The fact that the defendants had a continuing commercial relationship with the claimants was not enough to justify an . .
Cited – Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd CA 22-Sep-2006
The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the . .
Cited – Regency Rolls Ltd and Another v Carnall CA 16-Oct-2000
The court considered what was meant by ‘act promptly’ in the Rule.
Held: Dictionary definitions were considered by both Arden LJ and Simon Brown LJ – ‘with alacrity’ or ‘all reasonable celerity in the circumstances’. The court no longer has a . .
Cited – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-May-2008
The applicant and his wife were secure joint tenants of a house of a local authority under section 82. Their marriage broke down, and the applicant’s wife moved out of the house with the two children of the marriage. She returned after obtaining a . .

Cited by:

See Also – Forcelux Ltd v Binnie CA 21-Oct-2009
. .
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, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376208

Dresden Estates Ltd v Collinson: CA 1987

The agreement to let land purported to be a licence. The land-owner granted the use of storage space, but reserved the right to require the licensee to move to other premises as he chose.
Held: The right to change the area of land occupied was inconsistent with a tenancy, since no exclusive possession was surrendered to the tenant. The court contrasted residential and business tenancies: ‘The attributes of residential and business premises are often different’ and ‘the indicia, which may make it more apparent in the case of a residential occupier that he is indeed a tenant may be less applicable or be less likely to have that effect in the case of some business tenancies.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 EGLR 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.216559

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Fumegrange Ltd: CA 1994

The parties entered into an agreement. The plaintiff said it was not a tenancy, but a licence since it had retained substantial control over the premises by its ability to regulate the way the occupier conducted his business.
Held: The agreement was a licence and not a tenancy because of extensive rights of control which the agreement gave the landlord over the premises.

Citations:

[1994] 46 EG 199

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.216558

Stevens and Cutting Ltd v Anderson: CA 1990

The tenant served his s26 notice on the landlord and then began his application to the court. His application was however early.
Held: The landlord did nothing to indicate his opposition or otherwise to a new tenancy and so was not estopped from objecting to the fault. There was a prima facie presumption that a solicitor knew the law but one that could be rebutted.

Judges:

Stuart Smith LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 EGLR 95

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Legal Professions

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.216645

Gooch v London Banking Association: ChD 1886

On the application of a landlord, the court had jurisdiction to restrain the liquidators of a solvent company in voluntary liquidation from distributing assets of the company amongst its shareholders, without setting aside sufficient assets to provide for the payment of all future rent and liabilities under the lease.
Held: ‘I am satisfied here that the intention of the legislature as shown by all the terms of the Act, was to provide once and for all for the winding up of the company, for the discharge of its liabilities, the distribution of its assets, if there were any to distribute, and then for the dissolution of the company; being of that opinion I have come to the conclusion that the liquidators would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if they were to distribute the assets without providing for this liability, and that the landlord therefore in the present case, who has a claim, as it is admitted, against the company for the future rent which may become due, is interested in seeing the liquidators discharge their duty properly, and is entitled to come to this court and ask to restrain them, when… it appears… that they claim as a matter of right….. to distribute these assets without providing for this liability ‘.

Judges:

Pearson J

Citations:

(1886) 32 Ch D 41

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 . .
Cited – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.197017

Morrison’s Holdings Limited v Manders Limited: CA 1976

The tenants had to cease trading after a fire next door. They asked the landlords to reinstate and said they wished then to resume trading. Following the landlord’s demolition and reconstruction of the premises the tenants sought a new tenancy.
Held: They were so entitled. Applying Caplan: ‘I would put it in my own words as follows: in order to apply for a new tenancy under the Act the tenant must show either that he is continuing in occupation of the premises for the purposes of the business carried on by him, or, if events over which he has no control have led him to absent himself from the premises, if he continues to exert and claim his right to occupancy . . the temporary absence in Caplan v Caplan which did not destroy the continuity of occupation was absence at the volition of the tenant. In the present case the absenting by the tenants of themselves from the premises after the devastating fire was not their choice but was brought about by the state of the premises created by the fire . .’

Judges:

Scarman LJ

Citations:

[1976] 1 WLR 533

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – I and H Caplan Limited v Caplan No. 2 ChD 1963
For some months whilst the tenants’ right to a new tenancy was being litigated they had ceased trading and had vacated the premises. They then succeeded before the Court of Appeal and started trading from the premises afresh. Their protection under . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bacchiocchi v Academic Agency Limited CA 20-Feb-1998
The ‘continuous occupation’ required of a tenant to support a claim for disturbance on the non-renewal of his lease under the Act is not to be lost for the normal incidents of business life. The tenant had anticipated the non-renewal of the tenancy . .
Cited – Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.216546

Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd: CA 1985

The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building occupied by the defendant, and did pay such rent. The building was destroyed by fire caused by the negligence of the defendant. The insurer paid the plaintiff the sum due under the policy and brought an action in the name of the plaintiff to recover its outlay from the defendant. The defendant was not named as a co-insured in the relevant insurance policy. The issue came to whether the tenant had an interest in the landlord’s fire insurance policy and an insurable interest in the premises which were destroyed by fire.
Held: ‘this ancient statute’, Section 2 of the 1774 Act (which makes it unlawful not to name, as the tenant was not named, ‘the person interested’ in a policy to which the Act applies) had no application to indemnity insurance but only to insurances which provide for the payment of a specified sum upon the happening of an insured event. Lucena was the classical definition of an insurable interest.
Kerr LJ said: ‘The intention of the parties, sensibly construed, must therefore have been that in the event of damage by fire, whether due to accident or negligence, the landlord’s loss was to be recouped from the insurance moneys and that in that event they were to have no further claim against the tenant for damages in negligence. Another way of reaching the same conclusion, on which Mr. Harvey also relied, is that in situations such as the present the tenant is entitled to say that the landlord has been fully indemnified in the manner envisaged by the provisions of the lease and that he cannot therefore recover damages from the tenant in addition, so as to provide himself with what would in effect be a double indemnity. Although the receipt of insurance moneys by an innocent party is of course normally no defence to a wrongdoer (see Bradburn v. Great Western Railway Co. (1874) LR 10 Ex 1), Mr. Harvey relied on a number of passages in Parry v. Cleaver [1970] AC 1, 13 to show that considerations of ‘justice, reasonableness and public policy’ (per Lord Reid) may require exceptions to this general principle. I do not think it necessary to elaborate upon this line of argument in the present case save to say that I accept it and regard it as complementary to the conclusion which is to be derived from the construction and effect of the terms of the lease itself, as indicated above.’ and (after citing Canadian authorities) ‘In each of the cases the minority concluded that the absence of any provision expressly or impliedly exonerating the tenant from negligence was fatal, but the majority view was that there was no need for any such provision, since it was sufficiently clear from the terms of the leases and the landlords’ covenant to insure against fire, including fire caused by the tenants’ negligence, that the landlord could not maintain an action for negligence against the tenants, and that the landlords’ insurers’ right of subrogation could therefore equally not be enforced.’

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 QB 211, [1985] 3 All ER 473, [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 437, [1985] 3 WLR 964, [1986] ANZ Conv R 501

Statutes:

Insurance Act 1774 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Adopted – Lucena v Craufurd HL 1806
Before the declaration of war, against the United Provinces, His Majesty’s ships took possession of several ships belonging to Dutch East India men, and took them to St Helena. The Commissioners then insured the ships for their journey from St . .
Cited – Petrofina (UK) Ltd v Magnaload Ltd 1983
A finding of double insurance requires the same insured to be covered in respect of the same property against the same risks.
Lloyd J held that: ‘a head contractor ought to be able to insure the entire contract works in his own name and the . .
Cited – Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd v Imperial Oil 1977
(Supreme Court of Canada) de Grandpre J said: ‘On any construction site, and especially when the building being erected is a complex chemical plant, there is ever present the possibility of damage by one tradesman to the property of another and to . .

Cited by:

Applied – Siu Yin Kwan and Another v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd PC 16-Dec-1993
Insurers are liable to undisclosed principals on an indemnity policy, provided it was made with the range of their authority. The claim arose out of the death of two seamen on their employers’ vessel but the employers were not named in the relevant . .
Cited – Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey ComC 17-May-2002
The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The . .
Cited – Yarm Road Ltd and Another v Hewden Tower Cranes Ltd TCC 4-Nov-2002
. .
Cited – London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Stamford Asphalt Company Limited and Others CA 20-Mar-1997
. .
Cited – Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
Cited – Matalan Discount Club Limited v Tokensprire Properties Limited and Richmond Cladding Systems Limited TCC 4-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Heathfield v Owen CA 16-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership, Hoare Lea and Partners (a Firm) and Others CA 4-Jul-2000
A building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy in the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist . .
Cited – HIH Casualty And General Insurance Limited and Others v The Chase Manhattan Bank and Others CA 31-Jul-2001
Parties syndicating finance for a film obtained the security of an insurance which is designed to pay up to the sum insured, if the revenues generated by the film were insufficient to repay the loan finance plus associated expenses. The polices were . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle plc v GD Construction (St Albans) Ltd CA 22-Jan-2003
The employer and main contractor had contracted under the JCT conditions. The employer had been obliged to insure the property for fire in their joint names, but had not done so. After a fire caused by the negligence of a sub-contractor, he sued. . .
Cited – Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd ChD 23-Nov-2011
The defendant tenant said that it had exercised a break clause in the lease held of the claimant. The claimant said the break notice was ineffective because the defendant was in breach of the lease, not having paid an iinsurance service charge, and . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.184479

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Exel UK Ltd and Another: ChD 25 Jun 2009

The landlord denied the effectiveness of a notice given to break the lease, saying that it had not been given by all the tenants. The tenants replied that the landlord was estopped from not accepting the notice.

Judges:

Jeremy Cousins QC

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1350 (Ch), [2010] L and TR 7, [2010] 1 P and CR 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.374032

Hancock and Willis v GMS Syndicate Limited: CA 1983

The solicitor tenants moved to larger premises and for six months licensed the subject premises to others save for the wine cellar and save that they reserved to themselves the right to use the dining area twice a month.
Held: The thread of continuity of occupation had been broken: ‘The words with which we are concerned import, in my judgment, an element of control and user and they involve the notion of physical occupation. That does not mean physical occupation every minute of the day, provided the right to occupy continues. But it is necessary for the judge trying the case to assess the whole situation where the element of control and use may exist in variable degrees. At the end of the day it is a question of fact for the tribunal to decide, treating the words as ordinary words in the way in which I have referred to them.’

Judges:

Eveleigh LJ

Citations:

[1983] 1 EGLR 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bacchiocchi v Academic Agency Limited CA 20-Feb-1998
The ‘continuous occupation’ required of a tenant to support a claim for disturbance on the non-renewal of his lease under the Act is not to be lost for the normal incidents of business life. The tenant had anticipated the non-renewal of the tenancy . .
Cited – Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.216547

Boyle v Verrall: CA 9 Aug 1996

The Court’s discretion to grant a landlord possession is not limited to exceptional cases. Under Ground 1 in Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 the landlord was entitled to recover possession from an assured tenant if he ‘requires the dwelling house as his…principal home’.

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-1996, [1997] 1 EGLR 25

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 Part I Sch 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.78530

Henderson v Law: CA 1985

Griffiths LJ discussed the bringing of cases for possession under the summary procedure provided by Order 113: ‘There will obviously be cases in which, although proceedings are started by way of a summary procedure it quickly becomes apparent that a substantial issue has to be tried. If it was apparent to the applicant that a serious issue was bound to arise as to whether a tenancy or a holding ever existed, no doubt the judge would regard the use of the summary procedure as inappropriate, or even in an extreme case as an abuse of the process, and dismiss the application; but I would expect such cases to be rare, because I would not anticipate that solicitors would seek to steal a march by using an inappropriate procedure. From time to time there are bound to be cases such as this where, from the applicant’s point of view, an unexpected issue surfaces which raises the question of a tenancy or a holding over. In such cases, the judge must exercise his discretion and decide whether it is wiser to continue the summary hearing, or to adjourn it for a further hearing after the parties have had a chance to reconsider the position, or possibly to dismiss the application and leave the applicant to have the issues determined in a subsequent action.’

Judges:

Griffiths LJ

Citations:

(1985) 17 HLR 237

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA 26-Feb-1986
The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.259697

Muir Group Housing Association Ltd v Thornley and Another: CA 25 Nov 1992

The tenant’s right to buy the property held under a secure tenancy was lost when, even after the start of the procedure for purchase, the Tenant had let out the house to another, and so ceased to be a secure tenant.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Nov-1992, (1992) 91 LGR 1, (1993) 25 HLR 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Cited – London Borough of Haringey v Hines CA 20-Oct-2010
The authority sought rescission of a lease granted to the defendant under the right to buy scheme, saying that she had misrepresented her occupation when applying. The tenant replied that no adequate evidence had been brought that she was not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.84106

Shell-Mex v Manchester Garages: CA 1971

The defendant was allowed to go into occupation of the plaintiff’s premises solely for the purpose of selling the plaintiff’s brands of petrol and the defendants undertook to use every endeavour and due diligence to sell and foster the sale of the plaintiff’s products. The plaintiffs also were entitled to considerable rights of access to the premises for the duration of the agreement. The claimant said that no tenancy had been granted.
Held: The Rent Acts must not be allowed to alter or influence the construction of an agreement. If the consequence in law of a transaction is the avoidance of the application of the Rent Acts, then that is not a ground on which the transaction can be flawed.
Buckley LJ said: ‘It may be that this is a device which has been adopted by the plaintiff company to avoid possible consequences of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which would have affected a transaction being one of landlord and tenant; but, in my judgment, one cannot take that into account in the process of construing such a document to find out what the true nature of the transaction is. One has first to find out what is the true nature of the transaction and then see how the Act operates upon that state of affairs, if it bites at all. One should not approach the problem with a tendency to attempt to find a tenancy because unless there is a tenancy the case will escape the effects of the statute.’
Denning LJ said: ‘Broadly speaking, we have to see whether it is a personal privilege given to a person (in which case it is a licence), or whether it grants an interest in land (in which case it is a tenancy). At one time it used to be thought that exclusive possession was a decisive factor. But that is not so. It depends on broader considerations altogether. Primarily on whether it is personal in its nature or not.’

Judges:

Buckley LJ, Denning LJ

Citations:

[1971] 1 WLR 612

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA 26-Feb-1986
The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .
Cited – Binions v Evans CA 27-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.259541

Fear v Morgan: CA 1906

Citations:

[1906] 2 Ch 406

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Morgan v Fear HL 1907
Two adjoining tenants held of the same landlord. One enjoyed access and use of light over the adjoing tenanted premises for a period in excess of twenty years and without interruption.
Held: An absolute right of light was acquired as against . .
Cited – Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.222581

Anderson v Oppenheimer: CA 1880

The defendant owned a house in the City of London with different floors let to tenants. In the lease of the ground floor, he covenanted to allow the tenant ‘peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises during the term without any interruption by the defendant’. Water was supplied through pipes from a cistern. A pipe leaked, letting water into the plaintiff’s basement premises, damaging his goods. No negligence was found.
Held: There was no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The water had been stored for the benefit of the plaintiff as much as for anyone else, and so a Rylands -v- Fletcher claim was not available. Although the escape of water was a consequence of the maintenance of the cistern and water supply by the landlord, it was not a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. It did not constitute an act or omission by the landlord or anyone lawfully claiming through him after the lease had been granted. The water system was there when the tenant took his lease and he had to take the building as he found it.

Citations:

[1880] 5 QBD 602, [1880] 49 LJQB 708

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

Cited – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.188021

Bates v Donaldson: CA 1896

The landlord had refused consent to an assignment of the lease to a respectable and responsible prospective tenant, for the reason that the landlord wished to place commercial pressure on the existing tenant to surrender the lease to the landlord.
Held: The refusal of consent to assign a lease was unreasonable in the particular facts of this case. The landlord was motivated by a desire to obtain a commercial benefit which was collateral to the lease, in the sense that the lease did not confer any right upon the landlord to terminate the lease. The court also considered that the use of the power to refuse consent for such a purpose was a derogation from the right of assignment conferred upon the tenant.
Kay LJ observed that a landlord might reasonably refuse consent to an assignment because of the use to which the tenant proposed to put the premises, even though that use was not forbidden by the lease.

Judges:

Kay LJ

Citations:

[1896] 2 QB 241

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .
Cited – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 3-Feb-2000
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after . .
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 . .
Applied – Houlder Brothers and Co Ltd v Gibbs CA 1925
The landlord owned two adjoining commercial properties. The tenant of one proposed to assign the lease to the tenant of the adjoining property. The landlord refused consent on the ground that if the assignment went ahead, it was likely that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.187992

Tarjomani v Panther Securities Ltd: CA 1983

The tenant disputed whether he had surrendered the property in the lease.
Held: The court considered the basis of an implied surrender: ‘In my judgment, it is indeed estoppel that forms the foundation of the doctrine. The doctrine operates when the tenant is a party to a transaction that is inconsistent with the continuation of his tenancy, but in my judgment the conduct of the parties must unequivocally amount to an acceptance that the tenancy has ended. There must either be relinquishment of possession and its acceptance by the landlord, or other conduct consistent only with the cesser of the tenancy, and the circumstances must be such as to render it inequitable for the tenant to dispute that the tenancy has ceased.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

(1983) 46 P and CR 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Proudreed Ltd v Microgen Holdings Plc CA 17-Jul-1995
The handing back of keys without more does not of itself constitute a lease surrender. The passage in Tarjoumi as to implied surrender would have been more correct if there was added the phrase: ‘or such as to render it inequitable for the landlord . .
Cited – Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
Cited – Rysaffe Trustee Company (CI) Ltd and Another v Ataghan Ltd and others ChD 8-Aug-2006
Complex family trusts had been created over many years. Various documents were now disputed, and particularly the extent of land demised by a lease, and whether a surender of a lease had occurred. Landslides had disturbed the boundaries of the land. . .
Cited – Zionmor v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Islington CA 10-Oct-1997
The council appealed a finding that the claimant, a secure tenant, had not surrendered his tenancy. He had sought to exercise his right to buy the property, but was said to have left the premises before the lease was completed. The property was . .
Cited – Hardy and others v Fowle and Another ChD 26-Oct-2007
Mortgagees claimed possession of the land. The occupiers claimed a right of occupation under a lease. The mortgagees argued that the lease had been surrendered.
Held: The lease had been surrendered by a deed. The defects in notice alleged did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.236324

Sheffield and Others v Kingsbere Court Management Company Ltd: UTLC 20 Jul 2009

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT -flats -price- agreement before LVT that freehold worth 5.5% more than leasehold value -whether leasehold value relates to real world or no Act world -held real world value applies -appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 137 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373418

Leicester City Council v Theo Master: LT 12 Dec 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – lease granted pursuant to the right to buy provisions of the Housing Act 1985 – construction of lease – construction in the context of the admissible background including the terms of the landlord’s s.125 notice – whether landlord entitled to charge instalments towards future repairs and to hold such sums in a reserve fund.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 175 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372344

Halliard Property Company Ltd v Belmont Hall and Elm Court RTM Company Ltd: LT 12 Dec 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – LVT procedure – Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2003 as amended Regulation 13 – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 12 paragraph 10 – costs – whether a party to proceedings before an LVT acted ‘otherwise unreasonably’ under paragraph 10(2)(b) in exercising its right to request an oral hearing rather than accepting the LVT’s suggestion that the matter should be determined on paper.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 130 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2003

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372343

Innovate Logistics Ltd v Sunberry Properties Ltd: CA 18 Nov 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1321, [2008] NPC 129, [2009] BCC 164, [2009] 1 BCLC 145

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Innovate Logistics Ltd v Sunberry Properties Ltd (Orders) CA 18-Nov-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.278345