Category: Landlord and Tenant

Robert Hogg Esq, of Ramoir v Mary Hogg, Widow of Deceased Robert Gordon: HL 14 Feb 1780

Irritancy of Lease – Penalty.-
A lease provided, that if two terms rent were allowed to be ‘resting and owing unpaid at one time, the tack should eo ipso become void and null,’ with a fifth part more of termly moiety in case of failure. The tenant fell four years in arrear of rent. In an action brought under the annulling clause in the lease: Held the irritancy purgeable at the bar; and that the penalty, in case of failure of a fifth part more, was not exigible.

Citations:

[1780] UKHL 2 – Paton – 516a, (1780) 2 Paton 516a

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.561497

David Orme, Writer In Edinburgh v John Leslie of Balquhain, Esq: HL 25 Feb 1780

Entail – Leases – Alienation.-
How far leases for four nineteen years’ duration of an entailed estate were reducible as an ‘alienation’ thereof. Leases sustained, in the special circumstances, for the granter’s life, and the life of the heir who ratified them; but a lease of a mansion house, offices, and gardens, andc. reduced, and also of the lands beyond the lifetime of these parties.

Citations:

[1780] UKHL 2 – Paton – 533, (1780) 2 Paton 533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.561496

Thomson and Another v O’Connor and Another: CA 7 Nov 2005

The tenants appealed a refusal to adjourn the landlord’s claim for payment of his service charge until a decision on their counterclaim as to his refusal to allow alterations necessary to install central heating. The parties had been unable to find an agreed expert. The judge said that an application should have been made to vacate the listing.
Held: The judge had erred in refusing the adjournment and making the particular order for costs.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division) Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Moy v Pettman Smith (a firm) and another HL 3-Feb-2005
Damages were claimed against a barrister for advice on a settlement given at the door of the court. After substantial litigation, made considerably more difficult by the negligence of the solicitors, the barrister had not advised the claimant at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237831

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 ‘tenant’.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. The judge was correct to allow rectification or to construe the lease to allow for what was a clearly incorrect wording.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1579

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Thomas Bates and Sons Ltd v Wyndham’s Lingerie Ltd CA 21-Nov-1980
An application was made for rectification of a rent review clause in a lease. When executing the lease, the tenants’ officer, Mr Avon, noticed that the rent review clause in the lease drafted by the landlords was defective in not including a . .
Cited – East v Pantiles Plant Hire Ltd CA 1981
The court considered the circumstances under which rectification could properly be ordered in respect of a deed. Brightman LJ said: ‘It is clear on the authorities that a mistake in a written instrument can, in certain limited circumstances, be . .
Cited – 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 . .
Appeal from – Littman, Young v Aspen Oil (Broking) Ltd ChD 1-Jul-2005
The tenant sought to exercise a break clause in the lease. The landlord said that the exercise of the right was subject to the tenant having first complied with the terms of the lease.
Held: There was an obvious mistake in the clause which . .
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 – Bairstow Eves (Securities) Ltd v Ripley CA 1992
The lease conferred on the tenant a right to break the leases on notice ‘if the tenant shall perform and observe all the covenants and obligations herein on the tenant’s part contained’. It had failed to repaint the premises during the year before . .
Cited – West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson HL 30-Jun-2005
The Society had taken possession of a property in 1989. It located the defendants many years later and sought payment of the excess after deduction of the proceeds of sale, and for interest. The borrowers claimed the debt was expired by limitation . .
Cited – George Wimpey UK Ltd v VI Construction Ltd CA 3-Feb-2005
A land purchase contract had been rectified by the judge for unilateral mistake. A factor had been dropped from a formula for calculating the price.
Held: The judge’s conclusion that the circumstances existed to allow a rectification was . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236548

London Diocesan Fund and others v Avonridge Property Company Ltd and Phithwa: HL 1 Dec 2005

The defendant had taken on a lease of a parade of shops, and sub-let each shop for a full premium at a nominal rent. It sought to limit its own liability to pay the head rent by limiting the covenant in the sub-leases to pay the head rent to the time in which it held the reversion to the sub-tenancies. It then assigned the head lease to a man of straw. Upon his default, the sub-tenants became liable to pay the full rents under the head-lease. They sought to rely upon anti-avoidance provisions in the 1995 Act.
Held: The sub-tenants’ appeals failed. The question was whether the terms of the landlord’s assignment worked to ‘frustrate the operation’ of the 1995 Act. The mischief addressed by the Act was the absence of any way out of liability: ‘the mischief at which the statute was aimed was the absence in practice of any such exit route. Consistently with this the legislation was not intended to close any other exit route already open to the parties: in particular, that by agreement their liability could be curtailed from the outset or later released or waived. The possibility that by agreement the parties may limit their liability in this way was not, it seems, perceived as having unfair consequences in practice.’
Baroness Hale said: ‘The mischief at which the Commission’s recommendations were aimed was the continuation of a liability long after the parties had parted with their interests in the property to which it related.’
Lord Nicholls said that section 25 is ‘to be interpreted generously, so as to ensure that the operation of the 1995 Act is not frustrated, either directly or indirectly’.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (dissenting)

Citations:

[2005] UKHL 70, Times 05-Dec-2005, [2006] L and TR 4, [2005] NPC 138, [2005] 49 EG 88, [2006] 01 EG 100, [2006] 1 P and CR 25, [2006] 1 EGLR 15, [2006] 1 All ER 127, [2005] 1 WLR 3956

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Avonridge Property Co Ltd v Mashru and others CA 14-Oct-2004
The lease released the landlord from his liability to repair after his assignment of the reversion. It appealed a finding that the provision was void under the 1995 Act, saying the clause was a personal covenant not caught by the Act.
Held: . .
Cited – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another CA 30-Nov-2001
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects . .
Cited – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and Another ChD 27-Feb-2001
An office buidling had a toughened glass cladding. When a cladding plate slipped and fell, the local authority issed a dangerous structures notice. The landlord served a notice to use the Act to divest himself of responsibility for repairs.
Cited – Spencer’s Case 1583
An assignee of a lease will take both the benefit and burden of the covenants in the lease provided that there is privity of estate as between the person enforcing the covenant and the person against whom enforcement is sought, and the covenant . .

Cited by:

Cited – Good Harvest Partnership Llp v Centaur Services Ltd ChD 23-Feb-2010
The court considered whether the 1995 Act operated to prevent a guarantor of a lessee being required to provide a similar guarantor for an assignee. The tenant had created a sub-lease, and the lease required its guarantor to provide a similar . .
Cited – K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd and Others CA 27-Jul-2011
The agreement provided that the guarantors to the original lease should act also as guarantors on any assignment. The tenant challenged this provision saying that it contravened the requirements of section 25 of the 1995 Act. HoF contended that such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235510

Courtney Lodge Management Ltd v Blake and Others: CA 1 Jul 2004

The tenant appealed forfeiture proceedings for the failure sof subtenants to repair the property.
Held: Section 146 notices which were to lead to forfeiture were required to give a reasonable time to comply with the notice.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Chadwick, Sedley LJJ

Citations:

Times 15-Jul-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 975

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barton v Reed 1932
A covenant requiring a tenant not to suffer’ an action required it to be something which the covenantor had the power to prevent.
Mr Justice Luxmoore said: ‘I think there may well be as a matter of construction substantial difference between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.199229

Eyre and others v McCracken: CA 10 Mar 2000

The court considered the tenant’s covenant to repair in the context of a need for a damp course: ‘I have regard to the age, (over 150 years) and the design of the building. It has no damp-proof course . . I bear in mind the limited interest of the tenant and the poor condition of the premises . . when the term started. It is common ground that it would be sensible to put in a damp-proof course. . . In my judgment, to require the tenant to insert a damp-proof course . . would be to require him to give back to the landlord a different thing from that [originally] demised to him . . The circumstances are very different from those involved in the consideration of the landlord’s covenant in Elmcroft Developments.’ Hale LJ said that the question of whether ‘admittedly sensible works fall within [a] particular repairing covenant’ was ‘in every case a matter of fact and degree’, depending also on the wording of the covenant in question.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 501, (2000) 80 PandCR 220

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pembery v Lamdin CA 1940
There was an obligation on the landlord to keep the premises in repair in the condition in which they were demised. The premises were ground floor and basement premises which were let for the purpose of providing accommodation for the public for . .
Cited – Wainwright v Leeds City Council CA 1984
The court considered the landlord’s covenant for repair of residential property.
Held: The installation of a damp-course in property which did not previously have one was not a repair: ‘applying the facts of that case to the facts of this . .
Distinguished – Elmcroft Developments Ltd v Tankersley-Sawyer CA 1984
The premises were a part of a late Victorian purpose-built mansion block consisting of 27 flats, including seven basement flats. They formed part of a larger terrace of buildings of a similar character and provided high-class accommodation in a . .
Cited – Brew Brothers Limited v Snax (Ross) Ltd CA 1970
The court considered the extent to which the nature of a building affected the duty to repair under a lease.
Sachs LJ said: ‘It seems to me that the correct approach is to look at the particular building, to look at the state which it is in at . .
Cited – Stent v Monmouth District Council 1987
The court considered whether under a repairing covenant a wooden door should be replaced with a self-sealing aluminium door.
Held: The replacement came within a repairing covenant as a sensible way to deal with a persisting problem. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235322

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal: CA 8 Nov 2005

The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a procedural irregularity. The application had been correctly refused. ‘The question of whether certain work is within the ambit of a particular repairing covenant involves the application of legal principles to the facts, the terms of the particular lease or leases, and expert evidence. However, although, in a Platonic sense, there may be only one right answer in any particular case, in practice it is frequently difficult to discern that answer with confidence, and there is often room for disagreement between lawyers, including Judges, as to what it is.’

Judges:

Auld, Laws, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1305, [2006] 3 All ER 650

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Another CA 28-Nov-2002
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.
Cited – Lane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
Cited – In re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
Cited – Bland v Chief Supplementary Benefit Officer CA 1983
(Orse R(SB) 12/83)) The commissioner refused had leave to appeal against a decision of the Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunal.
Held: No appeal lay to it against a decision of a Commissioner refusing leave to appeal from a decision of an . .
Cited – Orchard Court Residents’ Association v St Anthony’s Homes Ltd CA 2003
. .
Cited – Regina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
Cited – In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company HL 3-Jul-1980
Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over . .
Cited – Gregory and Gregory v Turner, Turner; Regina (Morris) v North Somerset Council CA 19-Feb-2003
The parties were involved in a boundary dispute. One granted an enduring power of attorney, and sought to appear as a litigant in person through the power.
Held: The right of a litigant in person to represent himself was a personal right, and . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of M v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 16-Dec-2004
The appellants sought judicial review of the refusal of asylum. They sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, but that had been refused. They then sought a statutory review by a judge of the Administrative division. That review . .
Cited – North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corporation CA 14-Mar-2002
The parties had been involved in an arbitration. The claimant sought leave to appeal. The judge refused to give leave, but did not say exactly why.
Held: Human Rights law required a right of appeal. That right could only be exercised properly . .
Cited – Pembery v Lamdin CA 1940
There was an obligation on the landlord to keep the premises in repair in the condition in which they were demised. The premises were ground floor and basement premises which were let for the purpose of providing accommodation for the public for . .
Cited – Elmcroft Developments Ltd v Tankersley-Sawyer CA 1984
The premises were a part of a late Victorian purpose-built mansion block consisting of 27 flats, including seven basement flats. They formed part of a larger terrace of buildings of a similar character and provided high-class accommodation in a . .
Cited – Wainwright v Leeds City Council CA 1984
The court considered the landlord’s covenant for repair of residential property.
Held: The installation of a damp-course in property which did not previously have one was not a repair: ‘applying the facts of that case to the facts of this . .
Cited – Eyre and others v McCracken CA 10-Mar-2000
The court considered the tenant’s covenant to repair in the context of a need for a damp course: ‘I have regard to the age, (over 150 years) and the design of the building. It has no damp-proof course . . I bear in mind the limited interest of the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Disapproved – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Cited – The Wellcome Trust Ltd v 19-22 Onslow Gardens Freehold CA 5-Jul-2012
The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant permission to appeal against a decision of the President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) refusing permission to appeal to the UT against a decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. . .
Cited – Sarfraz v Disclosure and Barring Service CA 22-May-2015
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the defendant to remove his name from the list of those barred from working with children. He had been a GP. Though not priosecuted for any criminal offence the Professional Conduct Committee had found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Judicial Review

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234559

Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council: CA 9 Nov 2005

The claimant sought a declaration that it occupied land on which it had erected advertising hoardings under a tenancy rather than as licensee.
Held: The draft agreement which had been proposed and acted upon with legal advice contradicted any intention to create a tenancy. The form of agreement did not specify clearly what land might be the subject of a tenancy. The declaration had been correctly refused.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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: . .
Appeal from – Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council ChD 14-Dec-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234688

Akici v LR Butlin Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2005

The tenant appealed against forfeiture of his lease for breach of a qualified covenant against assignment. It was said that the tenant had attempted to hide from the landlord the assignment of the premises to his company or its shared occupation. The judge had found a sharing of occupation.
Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. The lessor’s notice failed to comply with section 146(1) of the 1925 Act in that it specified only other alleged breaches which it had failed to establish. But the court went on to observe that the breach was remediable and indeed had been remedied by a discontinuance of the sharing of possession.
Neuberger LJ said: ‘The difference between possession and occupation is rather technical, and, even to those experienced in property law, often rather elusive and hard to grasp.’ and ‘I do not accept that possession cannot be shared.’ and ‘the covenant against parting with possession of the whole or part of the premises . . should be given its normal, and technically legally correct, meaning, unless there is any good reason to construe it in some other way.’
Where the person prima facie entitled to possession is alleged to have parted with possession to an entity which is admittedly in occupation, the ultimate question is whether he has effectively ceded possession to that other entity. As to whether the section 146 notice has properly identified the breach, it was recognised that an alienation covenant is a combination of covenants. Mannai will apply to s146 notices. In this case however a reasonable tenant would interpret the notice as only objecting to a parting with possession not a sharing of possession.

Judges:

Mummery, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1296, [2006] 1 WLR 201

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lam Kee Ying Sdn. Bhd v Lam Shes Tong PC 1975
The Board considered an alleged breach of a covenant against assignment in a lease.
Held: The transfer to a newly formed company of the partnership business being conducted on the premises was a parting with possession. ‘A covenant which . .
Wrongly decided – Tulapam Properties Limited v De Almeida 1981
The lessee had given a covenant not to share occupation of the premises. He was claimed to be in breach of the covenant: ‘In a strict legal sense the word ‘possession’ has a highly technical meaning, and the sharing of possession is an unknown . .
Cited – Jackson v Simons 1923
The lease contained a covenant by the lessee not to ‘part with or share the possession or occupation [of the demised premises] or of any part thereof’.
Held: The lessee had ‘retained the legal possession of the whole of the premises’ and . .
Cited – Chaplin v Smith 1926
It is possible for a lessee to permit a company, in which he has an interest, to occupy the demised premises for the purpose of its business, without parting with possession of those premises to that company. . .
Cited – Fox v Jolly HL 1916
The House referred to a schedule of repair served on the tenant: ‘Now the schedule is attacked on several grounds. It is said that it does not tell the tenant what it is he ought to do in order to remedy the breach of which complaint is made. I am . .
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 . .
Cited – Marks v Warren 1979
An alienation provision such as the clause ‘Not to charge assign equitably assign underlet or part with possession of a part of the demised premises nor to hold the whole or any part of the demised premises on trust for another nor to share . .
Cited – Hoffman v Fineberg 1949
The court rejected an argument in the context of an application for the forfeiture of a lease, that a painting in the sixth year of a lease could not remedy a failure to repaint in the fifth year. . .
Cited – Expert Clothing Service and Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd CA 1985
Landlords took possession after a successful, at first instance, forfeiture claim. The tenant succeeded on appeal and then brought a claim for the wrong of breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
Held: The lease had been in existence all . .
Cited – Scala House and District Property Co Ltd v Forbes CA 1974
A breach of the covenant either against subletting or against assignment are uniquely not a breach capable of remedy, and the lease was subject to forfeiture. . .
Cited – Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill CA 1935
The tenant had been convicted of permitting the premises in Great Ormond Street to be used for habitual prostitution. The landlord served a notice under section 146 which did not provide for the possibility of the breach being remedied. The evidence . .
Cited – British Petroleum Pension Trust v Behrendt CA 1985
The tenant had been held by the judge to have known of the use by his sub-tenant of the premises as a brothel, or at best to have shut his eyes deliberately to it.
Held: Although the subtenant had been removed, the breach was not remediable . .
Cited – Glass v Kencakes 1966
The court considered the ability of a tenant to obtain relief from forfeiture for illegal or immoral use where the tenant was not aware of the breach by his sub-tenant until he received the section 146 notice. Where the tenant took prompt action to . .
Cited – Savva and Another v Houssein CA 24-Apr-1996
The tenant had broken a negative covenant against making alterations, namely not to change the exterior sign and not to alter the premises without consent. The landlord sought to forfeit the lease.
Held: The breach of the covenant was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 23-Jan-2009
The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc CA 8-Dec-2009
The defendant tenants, anticipating that the landlord might delay or refuse consent to a subletting entered into a ‘virtual assignment’ of the lease, an assignment in everything but the deed and with no registration. The lease contained a standard . .
Cited – Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd SC 5-Nov-2014
Old breaches did not support possession order
The mobile home tenant was said to have paraded on the caravan park in combat style clothing, and disguising his face, causing fear among the other tenants. He now appealed against confirmation of the order for possession. He said that there had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231660

Cadogan v Moussaieff: LT 15 Sep 2005

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – houses and flats in central London – appeals heard together regarding deferment rate – no convention that 6% established – absence of market evidence – decisions of LVTs and Lands Tribunal – settlements – financial markets – index-linked gilts – appeals allowed – deferment rates of 4.5%, 4.75% and 6.4% applied – Leasehold Reform Act 1967, s9(1C) and Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedules 6 and 13

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRA – 08 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230125

Cadogan and Another v 55/57 Cadogan Square Freehold Ltd: LT 15 Sep 2005

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – houses and flats in central London – appeals heard together regarding deferment rate – no convention that 6% established – absence of market evidence – decisions of LVTs and Lands Tribunal – settlements – financial markets – index-linked gilts – appeals allowed – deferment rates of 4.5%, 4.75% and 6.4% applied – Leasehold Reform Act 1967, s9(1C) and Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedules 6 and 13

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRA – 62 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230123

Arbib v Earl Cadogan: LT 15 Sep 2005

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – houses and flats in central London – appeals heard together regarding deferment rate – no convention that 6% established – absence of market evidence – decisions of LVTs and Lands Tribunal – settlements – financial markets – index-linked gilts – appeals allowed – deferment rates of 4.5%, 4.75% and 6.4% applied – Leasehold Reform Act 1967, s9(1C) and Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedules 6 and 13.

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRA – 23 – 2004, [2005] 3 EGLR 139, [2005] RVR 401, [2005] 41 EG 204,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Leasehold Reform Act 1967 9(1)(c)

Cited by:

Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230122

Cadogan and Another: LT 15 Sep 2005

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – houses and flats in central London – appeals heard together regarding deferment rate – no convention that 6% established – absence of market evidence – decisions of LVTs and Lands Tribunal – settlements – financial markets – index-linked gilts – appeals allowed – deferment rates of 4.5%, 4.75% and 6.4% applied – Leasehold Reform Act 1967, s9(1C) and Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedules 6 and 13

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRA – 18 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230124

Day and Another v 32 Rosary Gardens (Freehold) Ltd: LT 15 Sep 2005

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – houses and flats in central London – appeals heard together regarding deferment rate – no convention that 6% established – absence of market evidence – decisions of LVTs and Lands Tribunal – settlements – financial markets – index-linked gilts – appeals allowed – deferment rates of 4.5%, 4.75% and 6.4% applied – Leasehold Reform Act 1967, s9(1C) and Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedules 6 and 13

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRA – 87 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230126

Lay and others v Ackerman and Another: CA 4 Mar 2004

Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a counter-notice but it misidentified the landlord. The landlord appealed a finding that his notice was invalid.
Held: Applying Mannai: ‘the answer to the question whether the mis-identification of the landlord was ‘deliberate’ or not depends on how one puts the question. If one were to ask whether the solicitors who prepared the Counter-Notice intended to identify the landlord in the Counter-Notice as the PFCS Trustees, the answer would be in the affirmative. To that extent the mis-identification was deliberate. On the other hand, if one was to ask whether the solicitors had intended to identify someone other than the actual landlord as the landlord, the answer would be in the negative. To that extent the mis-identification was a mistake. ‘ and ‘One must first consider whether there was a mistake in the information contained in the notice (as there was as to the date in Mannai, and there was as to the landlord, in the present case). If there was such a mistake, one must then consider how, in the light of the mistake, a reasonable person in the position of the recipient would have understood the notice in the circumstances of the particular case. Finally one must consider whether, as a result, the notice would have been understood as conveying the information required by the contractual, statutory or common law provision pursuant to which it was served.’ A mis-identification of the landlord need not be fatal to the notice: ‘the effect of an error in a statutory notice can and should be judged by reference to the approach laid down in Mannai.’ The notice was valid.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 184

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Cited – Pearson v Alyo CA 1990
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act. . .
Cited – Morrow v Nadeem 1981
In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was . .
Cited – Latifi v Colherne Court Freehold Limited 2003
Estoppel and waiver are open to the recipient of a notice (including a counter-notice) under 1993 Act, in the same way as they are open to the recipient of a notice (or indeed, a counter-notice) under Part II of the 1954 Act. . .
Cited – Shelley v United Artists Corporation Limited CA 1989
There was a subletting arrangement. United Artists, who were the sub-tenant’s competent landlord under Part II of the 1954 Act, served a notice on the tenant, and then a further notice on the head landlord. The result of second notice was that . .
Cited – Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
Cited – Speedwell Estates Limited and Covent Garden Group Limited v Jane Rush Dalziel and others CA 31-Jul-2001
Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not . .
Cited – Barclays Bank plc v Bee and Another CA 10-Jul-2001
The landlord’s solicitors, by mistake, sent two notices to the tenant in the same letter. One notice opposed the grant of a new tenancy but on an invalid ground, and the other said a new tenancy would not be opposed. The tenant sought clarification. . .
Cited – B Osborn and Co Ltd v Dior and others CA 22-Jan-2003
Notices were given which were incorrect.
Held: The notices were upheld despite the errors. . .
Cited – Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar CA 19-Dec-2001
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the . .
Cited – Lemmerbell Limited and Another v Britannia LAS Direct Limited CA 8-Oct-1998
A break notice was served. The tenant had informally assigned the premises, and the break notice had been purported to be exercised by the assignee.
Held: The notice was invalid. ‘The present case seems to me to bear little resemblance to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194429

Bree v Scott: 1904

(Supreme Court of Victoria) The defendant squatted from 1878 upon land allotted to her mother as Crown licensee. A Crown licensee was entitled to acquire the fee upon performance of obligations in the licence. In 1885 a Crown grant was duly issued to the mother in consideration of a payment then made. A mortgagee sought to eject the defendant. The question which arose was whether the 15-year limitation period had run its course by 1899. If the period ran from 1878 the claim was barred. If the period ran only from 1885, being the date of the grant of the legal estate through which the mortgagee claimed title, the claim was not barred.
Held: Time ran from the earlier date. The licence under the Land Act 1869 was the seed of which the subsequent grant was the fruition of title. ‘Stated generally, the policy of the [limitation legislation] was to require a person having a right to land to exercise it as against a person illegally occupying at the peril of losing the land if the illegal occupation continued undisturbed for fifteen years. Here we have an occupation such as the Statute contemplated continuing undisturbed, and when it commenced, and up to the time of the issue of the grant, a person having legal title from the Crown who could have recovered the land against the occupant … This inactive licensee and lessee afterwards acquired a legal estate in the fee, not by virtue of any new right unconnected with her prior interest, but by the maturing of a right which had its inception in the licence. No doubt, up to the issue of the grant, there was no certainty that the fee would be acquired: the right to the land was inchoate, and might have been lost, but it was in fact perfected, and we have to say whether the nature of this new title is such as to wipe out all the consequences of past inaction, and to give a new term of fifteen years within which inaction must continue before the illegal occupant could acquire title … I should say that since the Judicature Act, if not before, the mere difference between legal and equitable estates would be insufficient. Take the case of omission to proceed against an illegal occupant by a purchaser under a contract of sale … there is no reason for saying that a conveyance by the vendor … would give this new start in the owner’s favour … The changes in the legal interest of the person who might have brought the action against the defendant in the present case made no changes in her rights as against the defendant; the right to turn her out was as good in the licensee as in the grantee.’

Judges:

Beckett J, Madden C.J

Citations:

(1904) 29 VLR 692

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chung Ping Kwan and others v Lam Island Development Company Limited PC 8-Jul-1996
(Hong Kong) Various provisions had been made for the termination of long leases in Hong Kong. Land had come to be occupied by adverse possession. At first instance the judge had given judgment against the squatters, but then retracted after a later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194082

British Bakeries (Midlands) Ltd v Michael Testler: ChD 1986

Peter Gibson J discussed the refusal of a landlord’s consent to an assignment: ‘In my judgment, where, as here, a refusal of consent to an assignment is based on a number of reasons, the fact that one of those reasons is bad will not normally render the refusal unreasonable, assuming that the other reasons are good. As the observation in Berenyi and British Bakeries suggests, it seems to me that, ultimately, it is a question of considering the covenant and the refusal of consent in each case. Thus, it may be clear that the bad reason is by far the most important reason, and that the purportedly good reasons were merely makeweights; or it may be that the existence of the bad reason infects or vitiates what would otherwise, in the absence of the bad reason, be a good reason. However, in the absence of such special factors, I consider that what was agreed in British Bakeries, was stated, albeit obiter and inferentially, by Slade LJ in Bromley, and appears to have been assumed in International Drilling, represents . . the law . .’
Peter Gibson J cited the following agreed principle: ‘If a landlord has a good reason and a bad reason for withholding consent, consent may nevertheless have been reasonably withheld if the good reason is sufficient reason and is not otherwise vitiated by the bad reason.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson J

Citations:

[1986] 1 EGLR 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited ChD 25-Feb-2004
The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal.
Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, and was an act . .
Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD 6-Oct-2016
Consent to assignment – delay
Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194087