Category: Landlord and Tenant

Ladup Ltd v Williams and Glyn’s Bank PLC: 25 Jan 1985

A court granting relief from forfeiture has an inherent jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent regardless of who the person was to whose detriment the forfeiture would operate. The court could grant relief to an equitable chargee under this jurisdiction.

Judges:

Warner J

Citations:

[1985] I WLR 851

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245847

Latimer and Another v Carney and others: CA 27 Oct 2006

The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Held: The damage to the reversion should have been inferred from the estimated cost of repairing the roof and in addition from the estimated costs of remedying the other breaches found by the judge. Section 18(1) also applied to limit the damages to be awarded for breach the decorating covenant during the term of the lease. A subsequent tenant had himself intended to carry out alterations which would limit the effect of the non-repair. The effect of section 18 is, in any case where its application is in issue between the parties, to require the court to find the amount of the damage to the value of the reversion of the premises caused by the failure to repair. To do this the court has to find the difference between the value of the premises in disrepair on the open market and the value that the premises would have had if there had been no breach of the covenant to repair. It need not do more than find that this difference was at least as great as the amount claimed against the tenant. Though the landlords had failed to provide proper evidence, the effect of the judge’s ruling was to deprive them of their damages, and this invited a closer inspection by the court. It was axiomatic that the defects as found including the repair needed to the roof and the decoration, were likely to affect the value of the premises to a purchaser. A purchaser was likely to want to let the premises or use them himself. There was no suggestion that they were to be pulled down or rebuilt. The correct assessement was for the judge to have inferred diminution in value to the reversion from the estimated costs of any repairs required to be done by the outgoing tenant which the landlord could actually show they had done, applying a discount as necessary.

Judges:

Arden LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1417

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Joyner v Weeks 1891
The general rule at common law is that the measure of damages for breach of the covenant to repair by a tenant is the cost of putting the premises into the state of repair required by the covenant. . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Hanson v Newman 1934
The basic measure of damages for breach of the covenant to repair is the reasonable costs of executing the repairs required to fulfil the covenant . . .
Cited – Jones v Herxheimer CA 1950
The landlord let the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor to the tenant for one year. The tenant covenanted to keep and deliver up the premises in good and tenantable repair, but was in breach. The landlord redocorated the rooms and relet . .
Cited – Culworth Estates Ltd v Society of Licensed Victuallers 1991
When considering how to measure the landlord’s loss after a breach of the tenant’s covenant to repair, the court may look to any reduced price recovered by the landlord on a sale after the end of the lease. . .
Cited – Gorne v Scales and others CA 29-Mar-2006
Although the damages to be awarded at the end of a lease for the tenant’s breach of his covenant to repair are to be assessed at the time when the lease comes to an end, subsequent events can be taken into account if they relate to the bases of . .
Cited – Firle Investments Ltd v Datapoint International Ltd TCC 8-May-2000
The landlord sought damages for the breach by the tenant of his covenant to repair, and claimed inter alia the estimated costs of repair as set out in a schedule of dilapidations. The tenant claimed there was no damage because the real value of the . .
Cited – Shortland Investments Ltd v Cargill plc 1995
The fact that a subsequent tenant was given a rent free period or was paid a reverse premium to take the premises, could allow a court to infer the extent of damage to the landlord’s reversion caused by the first tenant’s breach of his covenant to . .
Cited – Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk CA 2-Dec-1997
The landlord brought proceedings against the tenant for failure to keep his tenanted farm in a good state of repair. The judge awarded the cost of the landlord doing the repairs himself, making no discount for the possibility that the tenant might . .
Cited – Craven Builders Ltd v Secretary of State for Health 2000
The court considered the measure of damages for a tenant’s failure to comply with his covenant to repair where the premises did have redevelopment potential but a purchaser would still pay more if the premises were in a good state of repair.
Cited – Bonham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel 1948
A party claiming damage for breach of a covenant to repair in a lease must prove that damage. . .
Cited – Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk CA 2-Dec-1997
The landlord brought proceedings against the tenant for failure to keep his tenanted farm in a good state of repair. The judge awarded the cost of the landlord doing the repairs himself, making no discount for the possibility that the tenant might . .
Cited – Haviland v Long CA 1952
The landlord had a right to recover damages from a tenant for breach of an obligation to keep and leave the premises in repair. The landlord entered into a fresh lease with a new tenant who paid the full economic rent and agreed to carry out the . .
Cited – Gemmell v Goldsworthy 1942
A covenant in a lease for periodic decoration is not a covenant to repair because it will have to be performed even if the property is not in poor decorative repair. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245669

Oakfern Properties Ltd v Ruddy: CA 25 Oct 2006

Gazette The freeholder appealed against a decision of the Lands Tribunal in finding preliminary issues relating to service charges and jurisdiction in favour of the respondent subtenant.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1389

Links:

Bailii, Gazette

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Oakfern Properties Ltd v Ruddy LT 9-Feb-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245585

Taylor v Joshi: LT 15 Sep 2006

LANDLORD AND TENANT – fees and costs incurred by a manager appointed under s.24 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 as amended . . terms of lease insufficiently wide to permit recovery under service charge provisions ( recoverability under terms of order which appointed the manager.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRX – 107 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 24

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245458

Cadogan and Another v Sportelli and Another: LT 15 Sep 2006

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT . . preliminary issues – deferment rate – determination of deferment rate – Arbib v Earl Cadogan considered – deferment rate of 4.75% applied to houses and 5% applied to flats – guidance on this ( hope value – whether hope of releasing share of marriage value relevant in collective enfranchisement – held hope value excluded – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Sch 6 para 3 – method of assessment of hope value when not excluded.

Judges:

Francis FRICS

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRA – 50 – 2005, [2007] 1 EGLR 153, [2006] RVR 382

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Cited by:

Cited – Cadogan v Atlantic Telecasters Ltd LT 21-May-2007
LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – hope value – marriage value – preliminary issue – valuation under Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s 9(1A) and (IC) – whether value of landlord’s interest can include hope value – . .
At Lands Tribunal – Cadogan and Another v Sportelli and Another CA 25-Oct-2007
Appeals concerned with two preliminary issues, directed by the Lands Tribunal, to determine: (i) ‘the proper deferment rate to be applied to vacant possession value’; and (ii) ‘the proper valuation of any ‘hope value”. A further general issue has . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245454

The Incorporated Trustees of the Dulwich Estate v Kaye and others: LT 11 Sep 2006

LT SERVICE CHARGE . . Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27A ( construction of lease ( whether landlord’s renewal of a retaining wall on an undemised part of the estate was within landlord’s repairing obligation and could be included in service charge.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRX – 137 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245455

JR and R Wilson Turst v Blount and others: LT 11 Sep 2006

LT SERVICE CHARGE . . Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 27A (construction of lease) preliminary issue as to whether landlord entitled to renew the windows in the Building and to seek recovery of the costs through the service charge.

Judges:

Huskinson J

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRX – 108 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245456

Sedac Investments Ltd v Tanner and others: ChD 6 May 1982

The court was asked whether the plaintiff lessors were entitled to leave to commence proceedings against the lessee defendants for damages under section 1(2) of the 1938 Act for breach of a repairing covenant, even though the lessors had themselves remedied the breach before purporting to give the lessees a notice such as is specified in section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Judges:

Michael Wheeler QC J

Citations:

[1982] EWHC Ch 1, 264 EG 615, [1982] 1 WLR 1342, (1982) 44 PandCR 319, [1982] 3 All ER 646

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938, Law of Property Act 1925 146(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245432

Caerns Motor Services Ltd v Texaco Ltd and Another: ChD 22 Mar 1994

The court heard actions relating to the effectiveness of a solus petrol tie applied to two petrol station leases after the assignment of the freehold reversion.
Held: They remained enforceable. The ovenants were not eforceable. The term Landlord included its assignees.

Judges:

Paul Baker QC HHJ

Citations:

[1994] EWHC Ch 2, [1994] 36 EG 141, [1994] 1 WLR 1249, [1995] 1 All ER 247

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245434

Charalambous v Earle: CA 12 Oct 2006

The tenant occupied the property as his residence under a long lease. The landlord failed in his duty to repair the property, and the tenant was awarded damages for having to vacate the property. The landlord appealed the quantum of damages awarded.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court was entitled to take into account the rental value of the property when assessing the damages to be awarded for the distress discomfort and inconvenience resulting from the landlord’s failure.

Judges:

Cranwath LJ, Moses LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1090

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Earle v Charalambous CA 28-Jul-2006
Calculation of damages for breach of covenant to repair by landlord. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245345

Earle v Charalambous: CA 28 Jul 2006

Calculation of damages for breach of covenant to repair by landlord.

Citations:

[2007] HLR 8, [2006] EWCA Civ 1090

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Charalambous v Earle CA 12-Oct-2006
The tenant occupied the property as his residence under a long lease. The landlord failed in his duty to repair the property, and the tenant was awarded damages for having to vacate the property. The landlord appealed the quantum of damages awarded. . .
Cited – Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243992

Bent v High Cliff Developments Ltd and Another: ChD 2 Sep 1999

The replacement by a tenant of windows in a flat did not amount to structural alterations. The lease was clear as to what could constitute such alterations, and despite the different uses of the term in the lease, it clearly did not include either windows or doors.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

considered – Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School CA 14-Jul-1978
The court considered the finality of decision of a county court judge regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘structural alteration’ in the 1974 Act. Paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 8 provided that the determination of the county court judge ‘shall . .
considered – Irvine v Moran 1991
The tenant took a lease for under 7 years, accepting repairing and other obligations. The question was how those obligations fitted the landlord’s implied obligations under section 32, and the effect of the section on decorating covenants. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78342

Burrows v Brent London Borough Council: HL 31 Oct 1996

The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority appealed.
Held: The agreement had created a new tenancy even after a final possession order had been made, and a A new possession order was required before any warrant could be issued. Had the authority obtained a suspended possession order, no new tenancy might have been created. While a tenant could not sue for breach of a landlord’s covenant while the tenancy was in the state of limbo, if and when the secure tenancy revived, its covenants likewise revived and were to be treated as having been in existence during the limbo period.
An agreement which allowed a tenant to stay on in a house after a possession order had been made, did not itself create a new tenancy, but he might have the status of being a ‘tolerated trespasser’: ‘In the absence of special circumstances, an agreement by a landlord not to enforce strictly an order for possession, whether conditional or unconditional does not create a new secure tenancy or licence.’ However, a tenant who had not been evicted could apply under section 85(2) to postpone the date of possession, and, upon such postponement, the secure tenancy would be revived because ‘the date on which the tenant is to give up possession’ would not have arisen and thus the tenancy would not have ended. Until a possession order was executed, the court could by variation of its order change the date on which possession is to be given and thereby revive a secure tenancy which had already been terminated.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘What, then, is the correct legal analysis? I start from the proposition that where a former tenant is by agreement allowed to remain in possession of the demised property after the termination of the tenancy, the question in each case is quo animo the parties have so acted: depending upon the circumstances, their conduct may give rise to a new tenancy, a licence or some other arrangement. In the present case, on 5 February 1992 the parties plainly did not intend to create a new tenancy or licence but only to defer the execution of the order so long as Miss Burrows complied with the agreed conditions. It cannot be right to impute to the parties an intention to create a legal relationship such as a secure tenancy or licence unless the legal structures within which they made their agreement force that conclusion.
A secure tenancy protected by Part IV of the Act of 1985 is not like an ordinary tenancy. It can only be terminated by an order of the court ordering possession to be given on a particular date or in a particular event. But even determination by order of the court is not final. Until the possession order is executed, the court can by variation of its order change the date on which possession is to be given and thereby revive a secure tenancy which has already been terminated. During the period between the date specified by the order for the giving of possession and the date on which the order is executed there is a period of limbo: the old tenancy has gone but may yet be revived by a further order of the court varying the date for possession. If the parties reach an agreement as to the continued occupation of the premises by the tenant during that limbo period, what intention is to be imputed to them?
In my judgment little guidance is to be obtained from the cases where a tenant holds over after the termination of an ordinary tenancy where there is no possibility that the expired tenancy can revive. The position in relation to secure tenancies is sui generis. In my judgment, the agreement can and should take effect in the way the parties intend, i.e. it is an agreement by the landlords that, upon the tenant complying with the agreed conditions, the landlords will forbear from executing the order, i.e. from taking the step which would finally put an end to the tenant’s right to apply to the court for an order reviving the tenancy. There is no need to impute to the parties an intention to create a new tenancy or licence: the retention of possession and the payment of rent relate to occupation under the old tenancy which is in limbo but which may be revived. In these circumstances I think it is fair to characterise the former tenant as a trespasser whom the landlord has agreed not to evict – a ‘tolerated trespasser’ – pending either the revival of the old tenancy or the breach of the agreed conditions.
Once the effect of section 85 is appreciated, the absurdities which led the Court of Appeal not to accept that Miss Burrows could be a tolerated trespasser disappear. Technically the old secure tenancy is, during the limbo period, no longer in existence and therefore neither the repairing covenants in the tenancy nor the Defective Premises Act 1972 apply. But the tenant can at any time apply to the court for an order varying the date on which possession is to be given and thereby retrospectively revive the old secure tenancy, together with its covenants. If the tenant has complied with the agreed conditions, there can be little doubt that the court would make the required order. Moreover, the tenant will not be a homeless person within section 58(2) of the Act of 1985 because the tenant will be occupying the residence by virtue of any ‘rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation:’ see section 58(2)(c). If the tenant were in breach of any of the covenants in the old secure tenancy, Brent could apply to vary the order so as retrospectively to revive the old tenancy together with its covenants.
Finally, there is a method (albeit a clumsy one) whereby the order for possession even if an immediate unconditional order, can be discharged or rescinded if so desired under section 85(4). The power in that subsection to discharge or rescind only arises ‘if the conditions are complied with,’ a requirement which cannot be satisfied in the case of an unconditional order. But there is no reason why the order cannot be discharged by consent or, if such consent is not forthcoming, by the court varying the original order so as to impose the agreed conditions and then discharging the varied order.
It was submitted that the fact that the tenancy was granted to Miss Burrows jointly with Mr. Allen whereas the agreement of 5 February 1992 was made with Miss Burrows alone, indicated that the agreement must have given rise to a new tenancy with Miss Burrows alone. Therefore there must be a new tenancy. However, since in my view on its proper analysis the arrangement contained in the agreement of 5 February 1992 gave rise to no new tenancy with anyone, that factor is irrelevant. I therefore reach the conclusion that, in the absence of special circumstances, an agreement by a landlord not to enforce strictly an order for possession, whether conditional or unconditional, does not create a new secure tenancy or licence under Part IV of Act of 1985.
As Brent, by making the agreement of 5 February 1992, did not grant a new tenancy or licence to Miss Burrows as from 12 February 1992. It follows that the possession order of 29 January 1992 was properly enforced. I would therefore reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial judge and dismiss Miss Burrows’s action.’
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘whereas an order postponing the date of possession necessarily affects the operation of section 82(2), an order staying or suspending the execution of an order for possession on a stated date has no effect on the operation of that subsection but merely postpones execution so long as the conditions of suspension are complied with.’

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson L

Citations:

Gazette 20-Nov-1996, Times 04-Nov-1996, [1996] 4 All ER 577, [1997] 1 EGLR 32, [1997] 2 FCR 43, [1996] NPC 149, [1997] Fam Law 246, [1996] UKHL 20, (1997) 29 HLR 167, [1997] 11 EG 150, [1997] 1 FLR 178

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 82 85(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan CA 31-Jan-1996
The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought . .
Cited – Cannan v Hartley 1850
. .
Cited – Gray v Bompas 1862
. .
Cited – Oastler v Henderson 1877
The tenancy was for seven years. Shortly after its creation, the tenant left the keys with the agent and asked him to dispose of it or make the best bargain for surrender he could, and left for America. A tenant not being found, the agent returned . .
Appeal from – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1995
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Swindon Borough Council v Aston CA 19-Dec-2002
The tenant had fallen into arrears, and a possession order had been made. Having cleared the arrears, the possession order fell, but the landlord purported to issue a new tenancy agreement, with no security of tenure. They now sought possession . .
Distinguished – Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan CA 31-Jan-1996
The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham v Hawkins and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The landlord had obtained a possession order, but the tenant continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser, claiming entitlement as successors in title. Rent arrears had accrued, but even if the tenant had paid thenm the council would have . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
Cited – Richmond v Kensington and Chelsea CA 15-Feb-2006
The borough obtained a possession order of the secure tenancy of a flat occupied by their tenant for nuisance. It was suspended on terms for a certain period. They alleged further breaches shortly before the expiry of the possession order and they . .
Cited – Harlow District Council v Hall CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had been subject to a possession order in respect of his secure tenancy. He was later adjudged bankrupt. He asserted that the bankruptcy specifically prevented other action to enforce the debt, and the suspended possession order was . .
Cited – White v Knowsley Housing Trust and Another CA 2-May-2007
The tenant was an assured tenant. She fell into arrears of rent and a possession order was made, but suspended on terms. The court considered whether she continued to be an assured tenant, and could assert a right to buy the property as an assured . .
Cited – Austin v Southwark London Borough Council (355) QBD 29-Jan-2008
. .
Cited – Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington CA 22-Apr-2008
The claimant was a council tenant with the right to buy her property. A possession order was made, but then discharged.
Held: On the revival of the tenancy her right to buy and discount was also revived, and there was no need to serve a fresh . .
Cited – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
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 – Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant’s brother had been the secure tenant of the respondent Council which had in 1987 obtained an order for possession for rent arrears suspended on condition. The condition had not been complied with, but the brother had continued to live . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78761

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Wang and others: LT 7 Jul 2006

LANDLORD AND TENANT – services charges – Section27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as introduced by Section 155 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which came into force on 30 September 2003 – the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (Commencement No. 2 and Savings) England) Order 2003 – whether on an application made to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal after 30 September 2003 the provisions of Section 27A(2) and (5) apply so as to enable LVT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 27A notwithstanding that the service charges claimed by the landlord were paid by the tenant before commencement date – Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights – abuse of process.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRX – 89 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243176

Church Commissioners for England v Meya: CA 21 Jun 2006

The commissioners let a flat to the tenant on an assured shorthold tenancy for a year less one day with the rent payable quarterly. The tenancy continued as a statutory periodic tenancy. The court was asked whether the statutory tenancy was an annual or quarterly tenancy. The landlord had given three months’ notice. The tenant said one year was required.
Held: The landlord’s appeal succeeded. ‘Whilst for the sake of consistency one might hope that the new statutory regime would be introduced to reflect the common law, there is no presumption in this case that it should do so. The words have to be given their ordinary meaning.’ The statutory tenancy becomes one ‘under which the periods of the tenancy are the same as [the periods] for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy.’ Though the rent was expressed annually, it was payable quarterly, and therefore the statutory tenancy was quarterly.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward The Hon Mr Justice Cresswell Lady Justice Smith

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 821, Times 04-Jul-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 5(3)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adler v Blackman CA 1953
The agreement granted a tenancy to ‘hold for the term of one year . . at the inclusive weekly rent of andpound;3 payable weekly in advance on Monday in each week during the whole of the tenancy’. The question was whether a week’s notice was adequate . .
Cited – Laine v Cadwallader CA 26-May-2000
The landlord granted an assured shorthold tenancy for six months fixed at andpound;390 ‘per calendar month payable every two months in advance’. Clause 5 allowed the tenant to terminate the agreement with ‘at least one month’s written notice’. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242654

Boss Holdings Ltd and Another v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd: CA 21 Mar 2006

The tenant served a notice of its desire to purchase the freehold. The landlord objected that the property was no longer a house as required under the Act, having become dilapidated and unoccupied.
Held: The nature of the occupancy was to be tested as at the date of the issue of the notice and not the date of the grant of the tenancy.

Judges:

Law, Tuckey, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

Times 26-May-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 594, [2006] 1 WLR 2848

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes HL 1982
Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and others HL 30-Jan-2008
The tenant sought to enfranchise the property under the 1967 Act. The freeholders replied that it was not a ‘house’ within the Act at the time of the notice. It had been built in the eighteenth century as a house, but the lower floors had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242440

Notting Hill Housing Trust v Roomus: CA 29 Mar 2006

The landlord had served a notice to quit on his tenant. The notice specified that possession would be required ‘at the end of your period of your tenancy’ It was objected that the notice was ineffective.
Held: The notice must be interpreted to refer to the time immediately after the tenancy came to an end, and not to the split second when the tenacy was expiring. It was effective.

Judges:

Mr Justice Dyson Lord Justice Mummery Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 407, Times 01-Apr-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 1375

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 21(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lower Street Properties Ltd v Jones CA 1986
The tenant complained both that her tenancy was a periodic assured tenancy acquired on succession, and that the termination notice given to her was invalid. LSP had granted an assured shorthold tenancy to C, and J was her statutory successor. The . .
Cited – McDonald and Another v Fernandez and Another CA 19-Jul-2003
The landlord served a notice to terminate a shorthold tenancy saying that he required possession on a certain day. The tenancy had been a periodic tenancy, and the date was not the last day of a period of the tenancy.
Held: The Act was . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241395

Morshead Mansions Ltd v Mactra Properties Ltd: CA 3 Apr 2006

Tenants of a block of flats were in dispute with their management company. Some tenants had ceased paying rent, and forfeiture proceedings had begun. There had been a compromise of the forfeiture proceedings. The parties now disputed the extent to which the compromise settled other proceedings.
Held: The possibility of the claim now desired was known to the parties at the time of the compromise. However the compromise agreement should not be construed to a possible future claim under a resolution yet to be passed by the company.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 492

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
Cited – Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241403

Dogan v Semali Investments Ltd: CA 4 Aug 2005

Judges:

Sir Martin Nourse Mr Justice Patten Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1036

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gatwick Parking Service Ltd v Sargent CA 3-Feb-2000
When a landlord opposed a renewal of a business tenancy, the court must allow for changes in planning policy which affected the parties. Planning permission had originally been subject to a condition that it be used not by the claimant but by a . .
Cited – Accountancy Personnel Ltd v Salters’ Company CA 1972
The landlord opposed the grant of a new tenancy on redevelopment grounds. The judge found that the landlord had not established the requisite intention at the hearing date, but held that the intention would be established six months later. He made a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.229213

Angteeah v Bathfield and Others: PC 20 May 2019

(From the Supreme Court of Mauritius) Effect in Mauritian law upon a written agreement for the sale of leasehold land of the non-fulfilment of a requirement in the agreement for the obtaining of permission from the lessor for the transfer of the leasehold rights from the vendor to the purchaser.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2019] UKPC 23

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638474

Aviva Investors Ground Rent Gp Ltd and Another v Williams and Others: CA 18 Jan 2021

The issue on this appeal is the extent to which a provision dealing with service charges in a residential lease is invalidated by section 27A (6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewison

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 27

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.657289

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 andpound;20,000, and that the tenant had done sufficient to be in material compliance with its obligations and the notice was effective. The landlord appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had applied the wrong test. Sir Andrew Morritt C said: ‘Materiality must be assessed by reference to the ability of the landlord to relet or sell the property without delay or additional expenditure. Where the provision is absolute then any breach will preclude an exercise of the break clause. But I see no justification for attributing to the parties an intention that the insertion of the word ‘material’ was intended to permit only breaches which were trivial or trifling. Those words are of uncertain meaning also and are not the words used by the parties. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Jacob, Sir Andrew Morritt C

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 329, Times 12-Apr-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 2207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Label Ink Ltd ChD 2001
An industrial warehouse was let for a term of 15 years. A clause contained an option for the tenant to break the lease on one year’s written notice on condition that: ‘There shall not be any material breach of the covenants on its part herein . .
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 – 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 . .
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 – Finch v Underwood CA 1876
The landlord had covenanted with the tenant, on receipt of notice from the latter, to renew the lease ‘in case the covenants and agreements on the tenants’ part shall have been duly observed and performed’. Notice was duly given but the landlord . .
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 . .
Appeal from – Fitzroy House Epworth Street (No 1) Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd TCC 4-Nov-2005
The tenant sought to exercise a break clause in the lease. The landlord replied that it had not complied with its obligations for repair. The tenant said its compliance was sufficient in the material respects necessary.
Held: The tenant had . .
Cited – Chapman v Honig CA 1963
A landlord’s notice to quit was held valid notwithstanding that the landlord seeking to uphold its validity had himself given it in contempt of court.
A contractual right may be exercised for any reason good, bad or indifferent and the motive . .
Cited – Brutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
Cited – Fortman Holdings Ltd v Modem Holdings Ltd CA 30-Jul-2001
The issue of ‘material compliance’ in a lease whatever it involves must be determined on an objective basis. . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239801

Zafiris and Another v Liu: CA 27 Jan 2005

The defendant landlord rejected the claimant’s application for a new tenancy, saying that his own wife’s occupation of part of the premises for her business was sufficient to allow him to require possession.
Held: there was no authority for the proposition that a business of a landlord’s wife would be sufficient for this purpose. It was a matter for the trial judge to see whether as a matter of fact and degree the intended occupation was to count under the section.

Citations:

Times 03-Mar-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1698

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238598

Richmond Housing Partnership v Smith and Another: LT 23 Jan 2006

LT Service Charges – Procedure – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20(4) – Failure to serve copy of estimates – fees part of cost of qualifying work but not required to be included in estimate.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRX – 10 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20(4)

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238407

Regina v Rent Officer of Nottinghamshire Registration Area, ex parte Allen: 1985

The officer had entered a fair rent for a caravan. The site owner sought the vacation of the entry. The caravan was fully mobile, but was also connected to mains water and electric and sewage. The connections were easily removed, and the caravan was from time to time moved.
Held: Whether a caravan counted as a house within the section depended upon the circumstances. The fact that the caravans were sometimes moved, and the impermanence of the connections to the mains utilities took them outside the section. A county court judge can make a declaration as to whether a tenancy is protected under the Act (s 141(1)(a)), but cannot order an alteration in the register. A landlord wanting to challenge a proposed registration should do so quickly, so that the Officer could delay making the entry.

Judges:

Farquharson J

Citations:

(1985) 275 EG 251, (1985) 17 HLR 481, [1985] 2 EGLR 153

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 1 141(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.221534

Sandeman v Scottish Property Investment Co Building Society and Liquidators, and Others: HL 29 Jun 1885

Superior and Vassal – Sub-Vassal – Irritancy ob non solutum canonem – Act 1597, c. 250
Held (rev. judgment of Second Division) that when a feu right is irritated ob non solutum canonem (whether by virtue of an irritant clause in the feu right or under the Act 1597, c. 250) the right of a sub-vassal to whom the defaulting vassal has granted a sub-feu falls under the irritancy.

Judges:

Earl of Selborne, Lord Watson, Lord Blackburn, Lord Fitzgerald

Citations:

[1885] UKHL 850, 22 SLR 850

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637754

Lord Elphinstone v Monkland Iron and Coal Co: HL 29 Jun 1886

Lease – Landlord and Tenant – Landlord’s Consent to Assignation
Where a landlord has right to refuse to accept assignees of the tenant’s it is material evidence of his consent to an assignation that the assignee has with his knowledge and without objection by him obtained possession of the subject, but such evidence is not conclusive of his acceptance of the assignee as tenant, and it may therefore be negatived by the other circumstances of the case.
By a contract between landlord and tenant it was provided that the tenant might lay down mineral refuse on certain land, but should within a certain time level and soil over such deposit, and in the event of failure to do so within the time specified, should pay the landlord, to enable him to complete the work, ‘a sum of money at the rate of pounds 100 per imperial acre for all land covered with slag and not levelled and soiled within the foresaid period,’ and interest was to be payable from the date of failure. Held ( rev. judgment of Second Division) that the damage here specified was not penal but pactional, in respect that there was a single obligation, and the sum to be paid bore a strict proportion to the extent to which it was unfulfilled.
Observed (by Lord Watson) that when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more of several events, of which some may occasion serious and others but trifling damage, the presumption is that the parties intended the sum to be penal and subject to modification.
A public company was wound up voluntarily. A claim was lodged in the liquidation by one claiming that the company was liable to fulfil all the obligations and liabilities incurred or to be incurred under certain contracts to which he and the company were the parties. The liquidators made no deliverance on his claim, but settled the claims of other creditors, and then after a correspondence as to whether his claims remained entire against the company or had been transferred by assignation of its interest to a new company and become claims against it, gave him notice that unless proceedings were taken against them within a certain time they would distribute the surplus assets among the shareholders. He brought an action to have it declared that the company was still bound by the contracts with him, and that the liquidators were bound to set aside so much of the assets as should be required to meet his claims. The Second Division, in respect that there was no present debt or liability by the company, dismissed the action, leaving him to claim in the liquidation. The House reversed this judgment, holding that when a limited company is being wound up voluntarily, a creditor asserting future or even contingent claims may have the liquidators interpelled from dividing the surplus assets among the shareholders without making any provision to meet his claims when they arise.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor Herschell, Lords Blackburn, Watson, and Fitzgerald

Citations:

[1886] UKHL 870, 23 SLR 870

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637735