Category: Landlord and Tenant

Lyndendown Ltd v Vitamol Ltd: CA 6 Jul 2007

At the end of the lease, the subtenant had failed to comply with his obligation to repair the property, leaving the head tenant liable to the landlord. The landlord had issued a letter which forgave the tenant from his obligations.
Held: The letter did not excuse the sub-tenant or affect the value of the reversion so as to reduce the damages.

Judges:

Smith LJ, Jacob LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 826

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Smiley v Townshend CA 1950
At the end of the lease, the tenant had not complied with his covenant to repair. The court considered the damages which might be awarded.
Held: The court may take into account events which had not yet occurred but which threw a light on the . .
Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Town Investments Limited QBD 1992
When renewing his tenancy, the tenant may not pray in aid its own breaches of covenant in order to reduce the new rent. . .
Cited – Family Management v Gray 1980
Premises had been sub-let under full repairing leases and the disrepair which was the subject of the landlord’s action against the head tenant was due to breaches by the sub-tenants of their repairing obligations, who had by the term date of the . .
Cited – Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment HL 2-Mar-1977
The House considered the application of Orders made under the Counter-Inflation Acts 1972 and 1973 to premises let initially to the Minister of Works and then to the Secretary of State for the Environment for occupation by civil servants. Each of . .
Cited – Jacquin v Holland 1960
The relevant date for assessing damages for a tenant’s failure to repair the premises in accordance with his covenant is the term date of the lease. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.259143

Francis Jackson Developments Ltd v Stemp: CA 1943

The landlord had served a notice determining a tenancy at will before commencing proceedings for possession.
Held: The provisions of the Rent Acts applied to premises let on a tenancy at will. Lord Greene: ‘In my opinion this tenancy was a tenancy at a rent, and the result is that the Acts apply. I do not take up time by referring to the authorities which were cited to us, which at any rate settle, so far as this court is concerned, that the Acts do apply to a tenant at will.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1943] 2 All ER 601

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Banjo v London Borough of Brent CA 17-Mar-2005
The tenant had occupied the premises under a long lease which expired by effluxion of time. The landlord failed to take any steps to retake possession, and the tenant continued as a tenant at will, paying no rent. The landlord eventually issued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.223956

Green v Bowes-Lyon: HL 1963

Mrs Green had a tenancy of the ground floor and basement expiring on 1st April 1959. She occupied the basement for her business. Mrs Green sublet the ground floor to Mrs Bowes-Lyon, which she occupied for the purposes of her business, for a term due to expire on 31st March 1959. The landlord of Mrs Green, a Mr Wells, had a tenancy of the whole building expiring on 4th April 1959. His landlord, a Mr Rye, granted a reversionary lease of the ground floor to Mrs Bowes-Lyon for a term commencing on 5th April 1959. Under section 44 of the 1954 Act the relevant words were ‘tenancy which will not come to an end within fourteen months or less by effluxion of time or by virtue of a notice to quit already given by the landlord’. Lord Reid held the court should look at the state of affairs as it existed on the day on which it was necessary to determine the question whether the tenancy qualified under these words. The fact that the position might change should be ignored

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-gest and Lord Hodson

Citations:

[1963] AC 420

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Green v Bowes-Lyon CA 1961
Mrs Green had a tenancy of the ground floor and basement of the property in question expiring on 1st April 1959. She occupied the basement for the purposes of her business. Mrs Green sublet the ground floor to Mrs Bowes-Lyon, which she occupied for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.219074

Cornish v Brook Green Laundry Ltd: CA 1959

Citations:

[1959] 1 QB 394

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.219073

Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Ltd v Fahad Al Tamimi and First Penthouse Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene,Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1072

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Meretz Investments Nv v ACP Ltd QBD 27-May-2002
Meretz sued ACP for monies alleged to be due under agreements. . .
See Also – Britel Corporation Nv and Another v First Penthhouse Ltd and others CA 7-Aug-2002
Application for permission against judge’s refusal to continue interim injunctions.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Appeal from – First Penthouse Limited/Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited/Fahad Al Tamimi First Penthouse Limited Varlet International Limited Ruth Gary Orbach Quallvile Limited Norval Holdings Limited ChD 14-Nov-2003
Several transactions had taken place with regard to a lease of a roof void, which was to be developed for penthouses. The lease had been charged to secure funding. The development did not proceed to schedule, and a s146 notice was served. It was . .

Cited by:

See Also – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199803

Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 2) (Practice Note): CA 20 Jul 2004

The court gave guidance on the destination of appeals from county court cases. It was vital to identify the precise nature of the order under appeal: ‘The judges of this court (and the staff at the Civil Appeals Office) have to interpret the order of the lower court as we find it. The relevant decision is the Court’s order, and the Destination Order determines where appeal should lie from that order . . The appeal court must be the one that is readily ascertainable from the face of the court’s order, and not one which would or might have been ascertainable if the judge had made a different order. It would be intolerable if appeal courts had to be subjected to a complicated examination of the types of order that might have been made if the parties had dealt with things differently in the lower court, merely for the purpose of determining whether they possess jurisdiction. The destination of the appeal should be ascertainable from the language of the order.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2005] 1 WLR 1839, [2004] EWCA Civ 965, [2004] 4 All ER 653

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 1) CA 1-Jul-2004
The court handed down a New Practice Direction 52 for grounds of appeal, decisions in permissions to appeal, notices to respondents of appeals, appeal bundles etc. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and . .
Cited – Neina Graham v Chorley Borough Council CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant had submitted after the close of the claimant’s case that it had no case to answer. The judge did not put the defendant to its election as to whether to call evidence, but instead decided to accede to the submission. The claimant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199314

Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the 1954 Act was silent as to the addition or substitution of parties to proceedings. The assumption was that such amendments were to be allowed because the Act did not proscribe them. The extension of CPR 17.4 to limitation periods in some other statutes is within the powers of the rules committee.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 912, Times 28-Jul-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 3264

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, Civil Procedure Rules 29(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Piper v Muggleton CA 1956
For proceedings applying for a new tenancy under the Act, it is necessary that at every stage of those proceedings the person joined as ‘the landlord’ should in fact answer that description according to the statutory definition, and that if there is . .
Cited – Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
Cited – Liff v Peasley CA 1980
The court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. . .
Cited – Mitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd CA 1967
The plaintiff was seeking to claim against his employers for personal injuries. There was correspondence with them before action that did not lead to a settlement. When the writ was issued a junior clerk made a mistake and issued it in the very . .
Cited – Davies v Elsby Brothers Ltd CA 1961
The writ was issued within the limitation period for the claim against ‘Elsby Brothers (a firm)’. In fact, the firm’s business had been taken over by Elsby Brothers Ltd before the proceedings had been issued. By the time the plaintiff applied for . .
Cited – Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
Cited – Signet Group Plc v Hammerson UK Properties Plc CA 9-Dec-1997
An application was made for a new tenancy within the four month period prescribed by section 29(3) of the LTA. The applicants named in error in the application were ‘Signet Group plc’ and not ‘Ernest Jones Ltd’. Hammerson had not been misled and was . .
Cited – The Sardinia Sulcis CA 1991
The power to change a party after the expiry of a limitation period can be exercised where a party has been wrongly identified, but ‘it was possible to identify the intending claimant or intended defendant by reference to a description which was . .
Cited – The Jay Bola 1992
A writ was issued against defendants ‘O’ who had been owners of the Jay Bola, just prior to the expiry of the one year time bar under the Hague Rules. The judge laid emphasis on the fact that Article 6 III r.6 discharged from all liability unless . .
Cited – Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another CA 18-Dec-2001
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd ChD 16-Feb-2006
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198712

Williams, Williams v Kiley (Trading As CK Supermarkets): CA 15 Jun 2004

Enforcement of user covenants

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 870

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Williams, Williams v Kiley T/A CK Supermarkets Limited CA 21-Nov-2002
Tenants in a shopping precinct sought to enforce restrictive covenants directly against other tenants.
Held: The leases were in the same form, and covenants had been imposed to restrict the uses to avoid conflict. The scheme had the . .

Cited by:

See also – Williams, Williams v Kiley T/A CK Supermarkets Limited CA 21-Nov-2002
Tenants in a shopping precinct sought to enforce restrictive covenants directly against other tenants.
Held: The leases were in the same form, and covenants had been imposed to restrict the uses to avoid conflict. The scheme had the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198625

Collin v Duke of Westminster: CA 1985

In 1975 the tenant sought to exercise his right to purchase the freehold reversion of his property. The landlord argued that the rent payable precluded any such entitlement. Under the law as then understood, the landlord’s contention appeared correct. The leaseholder proceeded no further. In 1980 the law was clarified so as to indicate that he was so entitled, and in 1981 he sought to proceed with his claim. The landlord’s contention that he had abandoned it failed at first instance.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. Oliver LJ: ‘As regards abandonment [the judge] held – and in my judgment he was clearly right in this – that in order to succeed the trustees had to show either some reliance and change of position amounting to an estoppel (of which there was no suggestion) or what amounted in effect to a contract for mutual release. Quite clearly there was no question of an express contract and what he had, therefore, to look for was whether there was material from which mutual promises could be implied. On the facts, he found himself unable to find any mutual release but, perhaps even more importantly, he held that the Act of 1967 and the regulations provided, as it were, a complete statutory code which regulated exclusively how the statutory contract of sale was to be either completed or discharged and that there was no room for the application of the common law concept of inferred abandonment by mutual consent.
With respect to the judge, I doubt whether this latter conclusion can be right. . . As he rightly pointed out there is, in the law of contract, no room for a concept of unilateral abandonment. What the court has to look for is . . . material from which there can be inferred mutual releases or mutual promises not to proceed. In other words . . there has to be established, if only by inference, a fresh contract which has the effect of dissolving the relationship originally entered into by the parties and upon which one party still seeks to rely. Now tenants who are entitled to enfranchise under the Act of 1967 are not permitted to contract out of their entitlement, but there is nothing in the Act which prevents them, once their right of enfranchisement has accrued, from releasing contractually the immediate right of enfranchisement which they have acquired by serving a notice under the Act.’ The court agreed with the judge’s alternative conclusion that on the facts of the case there was no material from which mutual releases could be inferred.
The essence of a specialty is a covenant under seal or an obligation imposed by statute.

Judges:

Oliver LJ, May LJ and Sir Roger Ormrod

Citations:

[1985] 1 QB 581

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Martin v Medina Housing Association Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The former tenant had set out to buy the council house, but had written to say that she did not intend to go ahead. Her son who had taken over the tenancy after her death now sought, twelve years later, to require the authority to proceed at that . .
Cited – Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2006
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set . .
Cited – Nolan v Wright ChD 26-Feb-2009
The defendant sought to re-open the question of whether the charge under which he might otherwise be liable was an extortionate credit bargain. The creditor said that that plea was time barred. The defendant argued that a finding that the agreement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract, Limitation

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242431

Pulleng v Curran: CA 1980

The question was whether under the 1977 Act the tenant occupied the premises for residential purposes. The landlord said that a business was also conducted from them.
Held: The tenant had failed to establish that the business use had ceased. The court also his argument that, if his business use had ceased, he was protected by the Act of 1977. ‘There must be tens of thousands of similar leases where the person running the business lives above the shop’. Having once taken the benefit of the 1954 Act to acquire a new tenancy, the tenant could not then switch to claim the benefit of a different statutory regime. The tenant could not claim the protection of the 1977 Act, because the tenancy had been for mixed business and residential uses, and it was not right in principle or appropriate in practice that the tenant should be able to switch his protection from the 1954 Act to the 1977 Act simply by ceasing to use the premises for business purposes.

Sir George Baker P said: ‘[I]t certainly strikes me as a most remarkable conclusion if a tenant, by simply ceasing to carry on his business . . , could then say: ‘I am now in a position that I have the shop and all the premises subject to the Rent Restriction Acts; we have moved under that umbrella, and you, the landlord, can whistle for possession.’ He might indeed, if he was so minded, leave the shop to rot and simply confine himself to his upstairs premises.
The corollary, it seems to me . . is that the tenant could stop, start, stop, start, as long as he liked, juggling between the two Acts of Parliament.’

Judges:

Sir George Baker P, Cumming-Bruce LJ, Stephenson LJ

Citations:

(1980) 44 PandCR 58

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cheryl Investments v Saldanha CA 1978
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business.
Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of . .

Cited by:

Not Binding – Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity Kensington Estate CA 1990
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant’s argument. The . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Webb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet CA 1988
The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242245

Hicks v Snook: CA 1928

The property had been let for twenty five years with a shop on the ground floor with living accomodation above. There had been no formal tenancy agreement, and no explicit user stipulation. The tenant claimed the protection of the 1920 Act.
Held: The effect of section 12(2)(ii) appeared ‘to affirm in statutory form what the Court of Appeal had decided [in the Epsom Grandstand case].’ The commercial use of part of the premises did not ‘stop the premises in which he lives from being a dwelling house’.

Judges:

Scrutton, Greer and Sankey LJJ

Citations:

(1928) 27 LGR 175

Statutes:

Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 1(1) 12(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.242242

Green v Bowes-Lyon: CA 1961

Mrs Green had a tenancy of the ground floor and basement of the property in question expiring on 1st April 1959. She occupied the basement for the purposes of her business. Mrs Green sublet the ground floor to Mrs Bowes-Lyon, which she occupied for the purposes of her business, for a term due to expire on 31st March 1959. The landlord of Mrs Green, a Mr Wells, had a tenancy of the whole building expiring on 4th April 1959. His landlord, a Mr Rye, granted a reversionary lease of the ground floor to Mrs Bowes-Lyon for a term commencing on 5th April 1959. The question was to whom Mrs Bowes-Lyon was bound to pay the rent for the quarter ended 24th June 1959.
Held: Holroyd-Pearce LJ said of the tenancy of Mr Wells: ‘It expired on that date [4th April 1959] because the representatives of Mr. Wells were not using any part of the premises for business purposes, and therefore there was no continuance of the tenancy by the Landlord and Tenant Act.’

Judges:

Holroyd-Pearce LJ

Citations:

[1961] 1 WLR 503

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Green v Bowes-Lyon HL 1963
Mrs Green had a tenancy of the ground floor and basement expiring on 1st April 1959. She occupied the basement for her business. Mrs Green sublet the ground floor to Mrs Bowes-Lyon, which she occupied for the purposes of her business, for a term due . .
Cited – Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.219075

Crago v Julian: CA 22 Jan 1992

An intended assignment of a tenancy which had not been completed in writing by deed was ineffective as against Landlord. An assignment of a weekly tenancy must be by deed if it is to be valid.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1992] 1 All ER 744

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.79593

Sleafer v Lambeth Borough Council: CA 1959

The plaintiff held a weekly residential tenancy of the defendant local authority. The front door was defective and jammed. The tenancy agreement contained a covenant by the tenant to keep the flat in good and tenantable repair. When the tenant pulled at the door it came off causing him injury as he fell. He claimed damages for personal injuries.
Held: The claim failed. There is no implied duty to repair a property on landlord, and no such implication could be based on the obligations on the part of the Lessee under a clause permitting the Lessor to view the property and to effect work necessary for upholding the building. Wilmer LJ observed: ‘I think there is much to be said for the view that Clause II of the Agreement, which requires a tenant to reside in the dwelling house, does by implication require the landlords to do such repairs as may make it possible for the tenant to carry out that obligation. At least it seems to me that that is a possible view.’

Judges:

Wilmer LJ

Citations:

[1959] 3 All ER 378, [1960] 1 QB 43

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Followed – Tennant Radiant Heat Ltd v Warrington Development Corporation 1988
A property comprised a large building let on fully repairing leases of 22 units. The many rain outlets were allowed to become blocked, and water accumulated above one unit before that part of the roof collapsed. The landlord appealed a finding that . .
Cited – Barrett v Lounova (1982) Ltd CA 1990
In a tenancy agreement for one year and thereafter from month to month, the tenant covenanted to do all the inside repairs and to leave the inside in good repair, order and condition at the expiry of the tenancy.
Held: The decision of the . .
Cited – Adami v Lincoln Grange Management Limited CA 17-Dec-1997
No General Duty on Landlord to Repair Structure
The plaintiff was a tenant of an apartment in a block. He appealed a ruling that there was no term implied into his lease imposing on the landlord a duty to maintain the structure of the building. The lease contained service charge provisions, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Personal Injury

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194603

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Host Group Limited: CA 1988

A lease of various buildings including a public house required the rent review to be carried out on the premise that the demise consisted of a bare site. The issue was whether the terms of the hypothetical letting and the valuation formula were to be the same as in the lease itself or whether they should be those which the valuer regarded as reasonable for a lease of a bare site.
Held: Unless the rent review clause required some other test to be applied, the presumption was that the notional letting was to be on the same terms as the existing lease: ‘. . . rent review clauses may, and often do, require a valuer to make his valuation on a basis which departs in one or more respects from the subsisting terms of the actual existing lease. But if and in so far as a rent review clause does not so require, either expressly or by necessary implication, it seems to us that in general, and subject to a special context indicating otherwise in a particular case, the parties are to be taken as having intended that the notional letting postulated by their rent review clause is to be a letting on the same terms (other than as to quantum of rent) as those still subsisting between the parties in the actual existing lease. The parties are to be taken as having so intended, because that would accord with, and give effect to, the general intention underlying the incorporation by them of a rent review clause into their lease.’

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1988] CLY 2069, [1988] 1 WLR 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Gas Corporation v Universities Superannuation Scheme ChD 1986
The lease had a five yearly rent review, to be the highest of the current rent the rack rental value at the relevant rate. The rack rent was calculated under a hypothetical lease containing the same provisions (save for rent). The tenant sought a . .
Cited – Equity and Law Life Assurance Society plc v Bodfield Ltd CA 1987
The court discussed the nature and purpose of rent review clauses: ‘There is no doubt that the general object of a rent review clause, which provides that the rent cannot be reduced on a review, is to provide the landlord with some measure of relief . .

Cited by:

Applied – Laura Investments v Havering ChD 1992
The land was undeveloped when let to the tenant, who covenanted to build on it. On the rent review, the landlord contended that the rent should be calculated on the developed value, rather than in the condition as originally let.
Held: In the . .
Cited – Hemingway Realty Ltd v Clothworkers’ Company ChD 8-Mar-2005
The lease provided for a rent review under which the rent might either be increased or decreased. The landlord had chosen not to exercise the clause in view of falling rents. The tenant purported to do so. The landlord said that it alone had the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.187393

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 the balance was in favour of public justice. The evidence was sufficiently credible, and its effect would be sufficiently significant within the appeal to justify admission.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 491

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 1, Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .
Cited – Nationwide Building Society v Various Solicitors ChD 20-Jan-1998
Legal professional privilege could be set aside at disclosure where the fraudulent intention of one lay client was thereby shown as against another lender. The right to assert legal professional privilege does not apply to documents which came into . .
See Also – Khokher v Arundel Corporation CA 11-Jul-2002
. .
See Also – 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Khokher v Arundel Corporation CA 11-Jul-2002
. .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.180582

Long v Southwark London Borough Council: CA 27 Mar 2002

The claimant was a tenant of the flat and the respondents were landlords. She claimed damages for breach of the landlord’s covenant to take reasonable steps to keep the common parts clear. The authority argued that its appointment and payment of independent contractors to do the work satisfied that duty.
Held: The appointment itself was not sufficient discharge of the duty. There was no adequate system for monitoring the performance of the covenant by the contractors.

Judges:

Ward, Chadwick and Arden LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 10-May-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.171181

Kennedy v K B Van Emden and Co; Jordan v Gershon Young Finer and Green and Similar: CA 27 Mar 1996

A solicitor failed in 1983 to advise a purchaser of the fact that premium she was paying on purchasing a leasehold flat was unlawful under the Act, and would be unrecoverable on the sale. Before trial however, in 1989 the law changed and the premium would now be recoverable.
Held: It was wrong to assess damages mechanistically, and though the usual rule would be to test the damages at the date of loss, it was right to include an assessment at the date of trial if that gave a better view of the actual loss.
Nourse LJ said: ‘the damages are to be assessed in the real world. Compensation is a reward for real, not hypothetical, loss. It is not to be made an occasion for recovery in respect of a loss which might have been, but has not been, suffered.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 05-Apr-1996, [1997] 2 EGLR 137

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – County Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v Alan R Pulver and Co (a Firm) CA 1987
The claimant sought damages after his negligent solicitors had saddled him with a ruinous underlease. They had had to buy themselves out of the lease. The court considered the date at which damages were to be calculated.
Held: The starting . .
Cited – Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon and another v E Survey Ltd (formerly known as GA Valuation and Survey Ltd) ChD 14-Jan-2003
The claimants purchased a house relying upon a survey by the defendants. Although the defendants reported long standing movement of the property, the defendants failed to report that to be saleable, a long investigation would be required, reducing . .
Cited – Bacciottini and Another v Gotelee and Goldsmith (A Firm) CA 18-Mar-2016
A property subject to a planning condition was purchased by the appellant under the advice of the respondent, who failed to notify him of the existence of a planning condition. The judge had awarded the claimant pounds 250 being the cost of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Professional Negligence, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.82731

Duppa v Mayo: KBD 1669

‘The law leans against forfeitures.’ To forfeit a lease for non payment of rent, the landlord must make a formal demand for payment at the premises, and require the exact sum due to be paid before sunset on the last date for payment in accordance with the lease. Rent is not due until the midnight on the day on which it is reserved.

Judges:

Lord Coke

Citations:

(1669) 1 Wms Saund 282, [1669] EWHC KB J97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195880

Cadogan and Another v Strauss: CA 9 Feb 2004

The tenant served a notice under the Act, but failed to include a full list of the previous linked leases. The landlord said the notice was invalid.
Held: The error was not misleading. Such notices had to be viewed in the factual background. That would inform the landlord as necessary. To defeat such a notice the error had to be fundamental. The notice was valid.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 211, Times 11-Mar-2004, Gazette 11-Mar-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 6(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194129

In Re Town Investments Ltd Underlease: ChD 1954

The court considered a proposed underletting at a rent well below the current market rent, and in consideration of a substantial premium. It had been refused by the Landlord.
Held: The lessor had reasonably withheld consent. It was enough that the lessor has genuine, and not ‘unfounded’ concerns, on matters relevant to the value of his interest in the property, even if the prospect of those concerns being realised is small. Its ability to collect rent, and the value of the property, might be adversely affected in the future. Another concern was related to the lessor’s rights under the 1908 Act, which, when the head lessee’s rent was in arrear, would allow the lessor to require the underlessee to make future payments of rent direct to him. If the rent payable by the underlessee were less than the corresponding rent payable by the head lessee the lessor’s remedy under this section might not be wholly effective. Other concerns were the position which might arise on forfeiture of the headlease or on bankruptcy.
Dankwerts J said: ‘if a reasonable man in the [Respondent’s] position might regard the proposed transaction as damaging to his property interests, so that the [Respondent’s] view cannot said to be unfounded though some persons may take a different view he is not acting unreasonably in withholding his consent.’ and
‘I can apply these decisions to the present case. The dangers to the defendants from the defendants having to forfeit the plaintiff’s leases, owing to failure to perform its obligations by the plaintiff or his assigns, may be negligible. The situation in the event of bankruptcy of the plaintiff or an assign may present no real difficulty. But those who manage the defendant company think that notice under section 6 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1908, might not produce sufficient rent to discharge the sums payable in respect of the rent under the plaintiff’s lease. They are apprehensive also that, if they wished to realize their investment in the lease of No. 28, Berkeley Square, by sale or to raise money on it by mortgage, the reduced rent payable by Mr Romain might prove an embarrassment in their dealings. I cannot say that such a view is unfounded . .’

Judges:

Dankwerts J

Citations:

[1954] 1 Ch 301

Statutes:

Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Adopted – Shanly v Ward CA 1913
A tenant challenged his landlord’s refusal of consent to an assignment.
Held: The refusal was reasonable. The onus of proving that consent has been unreasonably withheld is on the tenant. It was not enough to show that other lessors might have . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pimms Ltd v Tallow Chandlers Company CA 1964
The landlord had refused its consent to an assignment of the remaining term of a lease to a development company, which desired to acquire the lease because of its nuisance value, and to use its interest as a basis for inducing the landlord to enter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.468828

Niazi Services Ltd v Johannes Marinus Henricus Van Der Loo: CA 10 Feb 2004

The tenant counterclaimed an action by the landlord for rent saying the property had not been repaired under the landlord’s covenant. The water supply had for 33 months been weak, leading to only a trickle of water being available, and there had been a failure to the lighting in the common parts. Only the water issue remained live. The tenant was a subtenant of the claimant.
Held: The tenant had to show that the defect arose in an installation which forms part of ‘any part of a building in which the lessor has an estate or interest.’ The installation (or the defective portion of an installation) had to be in that part of a building in which the landlord had an estate or interest, and the landlord was not liable.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 53, [2004] 1 WLR 1254

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – O’Connor and Others v Old Etonians Housing Association Ltd CA 20-Feb-2002
The pipes in a block of flats had been changed from 1.5 to 1 inch. This was all right for some 6 years until the water pressure of the supply to the building dropped. The issue was whether there was a breach of the s.11(1) covenant. The landlords . .
Cited – Wallace and others v Manchester City Council CA 23-Jul-1998
Damages payable to a tenant for a landlord’s failure to repair whilst the tenant remained in the property were not separate damages for discomfort and diminution in rental value since these amounted to the same thing: ‘for periods when the tenant . .
Cited – Calabar Properties Ltd v Stitcher CA 1983
The landlord had failed in his duty to repair. One tenant’s health suffered because of the damp, and they had to rent other premises.
Held: The landlord has only a reasonable time to effect repairs once he has been given notice of the need for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193428

Salix Homes v Mantato: CA 20 Mar 2019

‘The central issue on this appeal is whether, both in principle and on the particular facts of the present case, a landlord is precluded by cause of action estoppel from obtaining an order for possession of property by reason of the tenant’s non-payment of rent when there is an existing undischarged order for payment of earlier arrears and for possession for non-payment of those arrears.’

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Irwin

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.634796

Glendinning v Board of Agriculture for Scotland: HL 24 Jan 1918

In the absence of full argument on the question of the competency of an action, no plea being tabled, the House of Lords, in a doubtful case, did not decline jurisdiction but entertained the action, holding the point open for future argument and decision.
In an arbitration under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 to fix the compensation payable to the tenant of a farm on its acquisition for small holdings, the arbiter found that there was a question of law involved as to the date to which the tenant’s tenancy extended, and with the concurrence of parties gave alternative findings. The tenant brought an action of declarator to establish one of the alternatives. No plea to the competency of alternative findings was taken or fully argued. A previous case with alternative findings ( Scott Plummer v. Board of Agriculture for Scotland, 1916 S.C. (H.L.) 94, 53 SLR 207) had been entertained and decided, no plea to competency having there been advanced.
Held that, following Scott Plummer ( v. sup.), the appeal in this case should be entertained, the point, however, being kept open.
Per the Lord Chancellor-‘I think that the provision in the section that the arbiter has to decide the case within three months may be regarded as satisfied if within that time the arbiter states the facts finally so as to enable the courts to decide upon a point of law in an action upon the award, which indeed is the normal way of enforcing an award.’
In December 1913 the Board of Agriculture was given power to take a farm for small holdings, and was given to Martinmas 1915 to exercise the power. This was intimated to the tenant. His lease expired at Martinmas 1914. In February 1914 he approached his landlord as to whether the latter intended to serve notice to quit for Martinmas 1914, and was informed that he did not intend to do so, not knowing if the Board were to proceed, and not wishing to be without a tenant for a year. The Board took possession at Martinmas 1914.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the tenant was entitled to compensation for the loss of the profits on the year’s tenancy, Martinmas 1914 to Martinmas 1915.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Finlay), Viscount Haldane, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1918] UKHL 180, 1917 SC 264, 55 SLR 180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.631464