Category: Landlord and Tenant

Jones v Christy: CA 1963

Lord Denning MR doubted whether the mere letting of an incorporeal hereditament could be occupation so as to be the subject of a new tenancy within the 1954 Act. However, since the fishing rights had been used for the purposes of a business in connection with a room that was also let by the same lease, the letting of the fishing rights could in fact be the subject of a new tenancy within the 1954 Act.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

(1963) 107 Sol Jo 374

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pointon York Group Plc v Poulton CA 13-Jul-2006
The lease included a right to use seven designated parking spaces. The parties disputed whether parking space could be occupied in such a way as to be given protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Held: A parking space is an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.263269

Segal Securities Limited v Thoseby: QBD 1963

To demand rent may waive a right to forfeiture. Sachs J said: ‘When one looks at the authorities, it is, however, clear that a demand can operate as a waiver in the same way as an acceptance.’ Also the landlord’s own behaviour can be taken into account when deciding whether to grant relief against forfeiture.
A waiver occurs even where the demand or acceptance of rent was made without prejudice or under protest that it was not to be construed as a waiver.
Accepting rent can be a waiver of the right to terminate even if the landlord purports to accept the rent, ‘without prejudice’. Sachs J said: ”As both demand and acceptance respectively are in law merely different forms of a notification by a landlord of election not to avoid or forfeit the Lease, to my mind no distinction can nowadays be drawn between them in relation to a question whether the label ‘Without Prejudice’ affects their quality as an election.
There is no reason of principle why a right of forfeiture arising from a failure to pay rent, cannot be waived in exactly the same way as a right of forfeiture arising from a breach of any other covenant in the Lease. In London and County (AandD) Ltd v Wilfred Sportsman Ltd [1971] 1 Ch 764, at 786 Russell LJ (with whom Lord Donovan and Megaw LJ agreed) said:
‘The other argument put forward was that there can never be waiver of forfeiture for non-payment of rent by recognition of the continued existence of the Lease because, as has often been said, a right of re-entry for non-payment of rent is a mere security for the payment. I am not aware of any authority for this proposition, and I see no justification in principle for making this distinction between a default in an obligation to pay rent and any other obligation. Of course, rent may be demanded after the forfeiture days are passed, and, indeed, part payment accepted on account without waiving the forfeiture; this does not recognise the continued existence of the Lease beyond the date when that rent was payable. I refer in this connection also to the passage in Shepherd v Berger [1892] 1 QB 597, 599, which appears to me inconsistent with the proposition advanced.”

Judges:

Sachs J

Citations:

[1963] 1 QB 887, [1963] 1 All ER 500

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar (No 2) CA 20-Jun-1972
Right to forfeit waived by rent demand
The landlords’ managing agents learned that the tenant had been convicted of keeping a brothel at the premises and served a section 146 notice intending to forfeit the tenancy. He told his staff and instructed them not to demand or accept rent. But . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230299

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 the time, despite the ‘wrong’ order for forfeiture. A person acting on the basis of a court order (even one later set aside) commits no wrong while the order is in force. A breach will only be treated as being irremediable where the consequences of that breach cannot be put right or retrieved for the future.
The court considered the doctine of waiver where rent was demanded and paid after a breach of covenant: ‘Though we have been referred to no authority binding on this court to this effect, I am also content for present purposes to assume, without finally deciding, that (as was held by Sachs J. in Segal Estates v. Thoseby) Mr. Neuberger is right in submitting that a demand for rent will, by itself, have the like effect.’ (Slade LJ, obiter)
Browne-Wilkinson J said: ‘If the case were otherwise, there would, in my judgment, be very great confusion. People must be entitled to act in pursuance of a court order without being at risk that they are thereby acting unlawfully. Public policy requires it. I am not in any sense casting doubt on, or seeking to cut down, those cases to which I have been referred which indicate that where a judgment is reversed, the objective of the court should be to put back the litigants into the position in which they should all along have been had the law been properly appreciated – cases such a Rodger. Those cases are concerned with reimbursing to the parties moneys lost as a result of the execution of the judgment by the payment of money. They are not cases, such as the present, in which it is sought to found a separate cause of action on the carrying out of the court order.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Browne-Wilkinson J

Citations:

[1986] 1 Ch 340, [1985] 2 All ER 998, [1987] 1 EGLR 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Segal Securities Limited v Thoseby QBD 1963
To demand rent may waive a right to forfeiture. Sachs J said: ‘When one looks at the authorities, it is, however, clear that a demand can operate as a waiver in the same way as an acceptance.’ Also the landlord’s own behaviour can be taken into . .
Approved – 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 by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Cited – Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Etihad Airways PJSC and Another QBD 4-Nov-2009
The parties had entered into a sponsorship agreement, with the claimants undertaking to display the name of the defendants on their car. After the agreement, the claimant company had been taken over by parties with interests competing with those of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230301

David Blackstone Ltd v Burnetts (West End) Ltd: 1973

The doctrine of election is the foundation of waiver of forfeiture. The question whether an unqualified demand for rent falling due after the date of the breach giving rise to the forfeiture amounts to an election to waive the forfeiture was considered.
Swanwick J said: ‘In the present case the matter does arise for decision. My view, both on principle and on such persuasive authority as has been cited to me, is that an unambiguous demand for future rent in advance such as was made here does in law amount to an election and does constitute a waiver if, at the time when it is made, the landlord has sufficient knowledge of the facts to put him to his election. To my perhaps simple mind there is a fundamental inconsistency between contending that a lease has been determined and demanding rent on the basis of its future continuance.’

Judges:

Swanwick J

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 1487

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230300

Martinvale Developments Ltd, Re: 119 Berryfield Road: LT 30 Jun 2005

LT SERVICE CHARGES – administration charge – payment in respect of breach of covenant – whether charge made not payable by reason of failure of landlord to accompany demand with summary of tenant’s rights – whether admission by tenant that charge payable – whether admission as to amount – reasonableness of amount – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11

Citations:

[2004] UKLANDS LRX – 90 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228969

Rigby v Wheatley: LT 30 Jun 2005

LT SERVICE CHARGE – insurance rent – fair proportion of cost of insurance payable by tenant – fair proportion to be determined by the landlord’s surveyor – demands issued at figures not determined by landlord’s surveyor held to be invalid and not payable – appeal allowed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ss18(1) and 27A

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRX – 84 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228970

A Property Company v HM Inspector of Taxes: SCIT 5 Oct 2004

SCIT SCHEDULE A – income from land – whether agreements for lease gave rise to an immediate right to rent or whether the right was conditional on obtaining the landlord’s consent to subletting – whether the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 enables retention of a future rent payment on a sale of the reversion – no – whether the definition of the retained rent payment is void for uncertainty – no – whether contractual right to such rent is within Schedule A – no
CASE VI OF SCHEDULE D – profits – as to the rent payable under agreements entered into before the 1995 Act, it is not taxable under Case VI because the only possible head of charge is Schedule A which does not apply because the source has ceased – as to the rent caught by the 1995 Act which passed automatically to the purchaser, the sum equal to the rent purported to be retained on sale that the purchaser was liable to pay to give business effect to the agreement is taxable under Case VI

Citations:

[2004] UK SPC00433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and Others ChD 4-Apr-2007
Land at Wembley stadium had been sold to the defendants and leased back. The defendant assigned the freehold within the group, declaring that the lease was held in trust for the original freeholder. The claimant now said that the defendant assignee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228783

KPMG Llp v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: ChD 31 Jan 2006

Judges:

Blackburne J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 67 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited v New Hampshire Insurance Company Independent Insurance Company Limited Axa Reinsurance S A CA 21-May-2001
A claim was made under a re-insurance policy which supported film finances. The re-insurers resisted the claim on the grounds of misrepresentation. Rix LJ: ‘In principle it would seem to me that it is always admissible to look at prior contracts as . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – KPMG Llp v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The parties disputed the interpretation of a break clause in their lease. Carnwath LJ said that courts should not readily accept that parties have made mistakes in formal documents: ‘correction of mistakes by construction’ is not a separate branch . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.238346

Arundel Corporation v Khokher: CA 9 Dec 2003

The tenant had served a notice to review the rent. The tenent delivered a counter notice personally be posting it through the letter box. The lease provided that the notice was to be served at the last known business address of the landlord. The landlord had informed the tenant’s solicitor, but not the tenant direct that it had moved. The solicitor had not told his client.
Held: Service of the notice of change of address on the tenant’s solicitor was sufficient to count as service of the tenant, and the tenant’s notice was misdelivered and had not been validly served. It was not unreasonable for Arundel to have concerns about a proposed sub-tenancy and to raise them with Mr Khokher’s advisers to find out what, if anything, was going on. Arundel was entitled to be told the true and precise nature of the transaction, to which it was asked to consent. In view of separate doubts about the veracity of information supplied to the court by the tenant and his solicitor, the papers were to be referred to the Law Society.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1784

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 196

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Metropolitan Properties v Cordery CA 1979
The tenant sought to impose knowledge by the landlord of the condition of the property. The landlord employed porters in the building.
Held: The presence of the porters was sufficient to fix the landlord with knowledge of the breach of his . .
Cited – Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and Another CA 31-Jan-2003
The tenant applied for a licence to assign the lease under section 1. The landlord refused consent, but the parties continued to negotiate. The tenant argued that the landlord’s continuation of negotiations showed the earlier counter-notice to have . .
Cited – Fuller’s Theatre and Vaudeville Co Ltd v Rofe PC 19-Feb-1923
New South Wales – A party requested to give his consent to a proposed transaction was entitled to be given sufficient information to make his assessment in full knowledge of the circumstances. . .
See Also – Arundel Corporation (an Overseas Company) v Mohammed Ramzan Khokher CA 9-Apr-2003
In the course of an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord sought to adduce on appeal evidence that the tenant and his solicitors had sought to deceive the court.
Held: The application should not be heard in private since . .
See Also – Khokher v Arundel Corporation CA 11-Jul-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Arundel Corporation (an Overseas Company) v Mohammed Ramzan Khokher CA 9-Apr-2003
In the course of an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord sought to adduce on appeal evidence that the tenant and his solicitors had sought to deceive the court.
Held: The application should not be heard in private since . .
See Also – Khokher v Arundel Corporation CA 11-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.188688

Beanby Estates Ltd v The Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Ltd: ChD 9 May 2003

The parties disputed whether a tenant’s counter-notice had been served within the time limit applicable. It was out of time if the time ran from the date of posting of the landlord’s notice, but not if timed from the date of receipt.
Held: The Landlord’s appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1252 (Ch), [2003] 1 WLR 2064, [2004] 3 All ER 184

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 29(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.263718

Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz: ChD 27 Jul 2004

The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant implied under section 24. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out, saying that the claimant had not complied with an order to disclosed details of actions it had agreed with the landlord and which had increaed the sums due.
Held: There had not been sufficient non-compliance to justify a striking out of the claim.

Judges:

Hart J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1835 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 24-Jul-2003
Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now . .

Cited by:

See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 11-Apr-2006
The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The . .
See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .
See Also – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226176

O’Brien v Glentamer Mansions Management Co Ltd: LT 8 Mar 2004

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – claim by former landlord for compensation for loss resulting from collective enfranchisement – price determined by County Court upheld by Court of Appeal – Leasehold Valuation Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction – appeal dismissed – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedule 6, paragraph 5.

Citations:

[2004] EWLands LRA – 58 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225795

Fattal and Another v Possessions Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon: LT 14 Jan 2004

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – price payable for freehold interest – valuation methodology – tenants’ improvements – treatment of development value – comparables – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9(1A)(d) – appeal allowed in part – enfranchisement price andpound;1,941,655.

Citations:

[2004] EWLands LRA – 21 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225786

Collins and Another v Doyle and others: LT 7 Oct 2003

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – premiums payable for grant of new leases of flats – marriage value – value of long lease agreed – whether assignments of unextended leases of other flats in same block provide satisfactory evidence of value of existing leases of subject flats – appeal dismissed – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s48.

Citations:

[2003] EWLands LRA – 65 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 48

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225770

Gesso Properties (BVI) Ltd v SCMLLA Ltd: LT 30 Mar 2004

LT Hope value was not established by the landlord on the evidence.

Citations:

[2004] EWLands LRA – 13 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225794

Roohanna v Regis Group Plc: LT 24 Sep 2003

LT SERVICE CHARGE – repairs to roof – whether alleged failure to repair the property by the landlords increased the specification and cost of the roof repairs – reasonableness – whether LVT in error in not considering whether appellant tenant’s quiet enjoyment violated – appeal dismissed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ss18, 19(1)(2)(2B).

Citations:

[2003] EWLands LRX – 30 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225768

S F Holdings Inc (A Company) v Eyre Estate Trustees: LT 9 Jun 2003

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – price payable for freehold of house – unimproved value – comparable sale – market movement between valuation date of subject property and sale of comparable – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2003] EWLands LRA – 33 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225747

Thiery v John Lyon’s Charity: LT 16 Jul 2003

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – premium payable for grant of new lease of flat – marriage value – market value of existing lease agreed – whether value affected by provisions of Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2003] EWLands LRA – 44 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225757

Abacona Investements Ltd v Wright and others (Executors of Will of Eileen Elizabeth Yardley Deceased): LT 22 Feb 2001

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – premium for grant of new lease – yield – review rents – value of existing and proposed interests – compensation for loss or damage – valuation costs – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, section 60 and Schedule 13

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 23 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225633

Caplin and Another v Bridge and Another: LT 22 Feb 2001

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Price payable for acquisition of freehold – value attributable freeholder’s opportunity to receive insurance commissions – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9 – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 53 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225634

Rees-Davies v City of Westminster: LT 28 Sep 2001

LT PRACTICE – leasehold enfranchisement -application for extension of time and adjournment of hearing – appellants required to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed – whether appellants failed to pursue the appeal with due diligence – whether appellants failed to comply with any provisions of Lands Tribunal Rules – Lands Tribunal Rules 1996, rules 3(4), 45(2) and 46(2)(b)

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 18 – 1994

Links:

Bailii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225676

Langinger v Earl of Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd: LT 16 Oct 2001

LT Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, 1993 Schedule 13 – Valuation of Leases disregarding rights – Evidence of settlements – Marginal variation from LVT’s valuation – Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 46 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225683