Category: Landlord and Tenant

Binions v Evans: CA 27 Jan 1972

The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other terms were quite inconsistent with a tenancy at will.
Held: The tenancy was not a tenancy at will. However because no rent was paid, the lease could not be converted under the 1925 Act to one of 99 years.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Megaw, Stephenson LJJ

Citations:

[1972] 2 All ER 70, [1972] Ch 359, [1972] EWCA Civ 6, [1972] 2 All ER 70, [1972] Ch 359, [1972] 2 WLR 729, [1972] EWCA Civ 6, [1972] 2 WLR 729

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 149(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Doe dem Warner v Browne 1807
The parties agreed a lease at a rent of andpound;40 per annum. The landlord was not to raise the rent nor turn out the tenant ‘so long as the rent is duly paid quarterly, and he does not expose to sale or sell any article that may be injurious to W . .
Cited – Lace v Chantler CA 1944
The freeholder purported to let the house to the tenant ‘for the duration of the war’
Held: The term was uncertain, and therefore no lease was created.
Lord Green MR said: ‘The intention was to create a tenancy and nothing else. The law . .
Cited – Buck v Howarth 1947
A man, for no consideration, gave another permission to stay in a cottage until he died.
Held: It was not a lease but only a tenancy at will. . .
Cited – Bannister v Bannister 1948
A claim that the owner had agreed to let the occupier live in a cottage rent free for as long as she wished was treated as a claim based on constructive trust, on the basis that the purchaser fraudulently set up ‘the absolute character of the . .
Cited – Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe CA 1957
The trustees of a tennis club took possession of tennis courts and a clubhouse under a lease, and sought a new lease under the 1954 Act. The landlord said that they were only licensees and in any event were not entitled to a new lease since they . .
Cited – In Re Carne’s Settled Estates 1899
A right to occupy for life, arising by settlement gives to the occupier an equitable interest in the land. . .
Cited – Re Boyer’s Settled Estates 1916
A right to reside shared by two persons was recognized as a valid and effective right. Sargant J said: ‘I think that the effect of s58 is, broadly speaking, to give to the large class of persons comprised in the nine headings of subs(1) of s58 the . .
Cited – Shell-Mex v Manchester Garages CA 1971
The defendant was allowed to go into occupation of the plaintiff’s premises solely for the purpose of selling the plaintiff’s brands of petrol and the defendants undertook to use every endeavour and due diligence to sell and foster the sale of the . .
Cited – Errington v Errington and Woods CA 19-Dec-1951
There was a contract by a father to allow his son to buy the father’s house on payment of the instalments of the father’s Building Society loan.
Held: Denning LJ reviewed the cases and said: ‘The result of all these cases is that, although a . .
Cited – Foster v Robinson CA 1950
Where a tenant has purported to surrender his lease, but has not succeeded, and the tenant changes his situation, the landlord may be estopped from asserting that the lease continues. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.262744

Smith v Muscat: CA 10 Jul 2003

The tenant was sued by his landlord for arrears of rent, but sought an equitable set-off for damages for disrepair accruing under the previous landlord.
Held: If the entitlement to recover arrears of rent passes from assignor to assignee, and if the amount of that entitlement is reduced or extinguished at common law by money which the tenant has expended in remedying the assignor’s breaches of covenant (in other words, the abatement of rent passes too), it is not easy to see what principle of law or justice denies similar relief to a lessee who may not have had enough money to do the repairs but was entitled to be compensated from day to day for the conditions he has consequently had to live in. The decision in Lotteryking was to be followed, and the tenant’s right of set-off was exercisable against the assignee landlord.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 962, Times 12-Aug-2003, Gazette 18-Sep-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 853

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 77 141 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taylor vBeale 1591
Where a tenant is required to spend money on remedying the breach of the landlord’s covenant to repair, the money so spent could be invoked to abate the rent even if it thereafter falls due to a successor landlord. Discharge by the tenant of the . .
Cited – Lee-Parker v Izzett (1) ChD 1971
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence of set-off at law to a claim for unpaid rent. Justice Goff discussed the . .
Cited – Duncliffe v Caefelin Properties Ltd ChD 1989
The defendants had taken an assignment of the reversion of a flat held on a long lease. The assignors had gone into liquidation when in prolonged breach of the lessor’s repairing covenant. The lessee asserted that the effect of s.142 on an . .
Cited – Lotteryking Ltd v AMEC Properties Ltd ChD 1995
The tenant sought to prevent the sale of the landlord’s reversion until the lessor’s repairing obligations had been met. One of the grounds was that on a sale the tenant’s right of set-off would not pass.
Held: An order was refused. Lightman . .
Cited – Roxburghe v Cox 1881
K owed the plaintiff andpound;5,000 plus interest. He also owed the defendants, who were his bankers, andpound;647. When he retired from the army the proceeds of sale of his commission, namely andpound;3000, were sent to the defendants as his . .
Cited – Government of Newfoundland v Newfoundland Railway PC 7-Feb-1888
A railway company and its assignees brought action the Government. Under the contract the company was to build a railway subsidised by the government. The railway was not completed. The parties disputed whether the contract was ‘entire’ and no part . .
Cited – Hanak v Green CA 1958
A builder was sued for his failure to complete the works he had contracted for. The buider sought a set-off against that claim of three of his one claims. One, under the contract, was for losses from the defendant’s refusal to allow his workmen . .
Cited – British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Cited – Edlington Properties Ltd v J H Fenner and Co Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2005
The landlord sought repayment of arrears of rent. The tenant sought to raise a set off which had arisen against the landlord’s predecessor arising from defects in the property they had constructed.
Held: The tenant had no right of set off. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184774

Holding and Barnes Plc v Hill House Hammond Ltd (No 1): CA 20 Jul 2001

There had been a sale of an insurance business under which there were to be granted seven leases, two of which related to complete buildings and five to parts of buildings. All seven leases contained landlord’s repairing covenants. One of the leases of a complete building (‘The Ilford lease’) contained a covenant in the following form: ‘to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good and tenantable repair and condition.’ The other lease of a whole building had a different form of covenant: ‘4.3 . . to keep the structure and the exterior of the building (other than those parts comprised in the property) in good and tenantable condition.’ The problem was that the lease defined ‘the property’ as the whole building, with the result that, read literally, the clause meant there was an obligation to keep in repair the exterior of the property, other than the property.
Held: This was an obvious nonsense and it was corrected. ‘The problem which arises is a good illustration of the dangers of the use of the word processor to produce a draft which is then copied to provide other drafts to be adapted for the purpose of other cases.’ Looking at the leases together it could be seen that there was an obvious error and ‘What the parties plainly intended was a repairing covenant in the same form as that of the Ilford lease . .’ The draftsman of the particular lease had taken by mistake a covenant from one of the leases of a part building. This was ‘an obvious clerical error’ which the court could correct.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2002] L and TR 7, [2001] EWCA Civ 1334

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – JIS (1974) Ltd v MCP Investment Nominees I Ltd CA 9-Apr-2003
The parties agreed for a lease to be granted of a new building. Part had been intended to be excluded for shops, but permission was not obtained, the shops area was included and leased back. When the tenants sought to determine the lease, the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184536

Stretch v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Jun 2003

The claimant had taken a lease of property from a local authority. Relying upon an option for renewal, he invested substantially in the property, but it was then decided that the option was ultra vires.
Held: Property rights protected under the Convention included such rights. The concept of ‘possessions’ in Art. 1 includes a legitimate expectation of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right resulting from the ultra vires act of a public authority. The council had acted under a mistaken belief as to its capacity. No third party interest would have been affected, and the interference in private property rights was disproportionate.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Judges:

Pellonpaa, President, Sir Nicolas Bratza, E. Palm, V. Stranick, S. Pavlovschi, L. Garlicki, J. Borrego Borrego

Citations:

44277/98, Times 03-Jul-2003, (2003) 38 EHRR 12, [2003] ECHR 320

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1933

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal from – Stretch v West Dorset District Council CA 10-Nov-1997
A local authority has no ability to grant an option to renew a lease, even though it has the power to grant a lease and would benefit from the wrongful grant. The land was held for an express statutory purpose and was not ‘corporate land’ within the . .
Cited – Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland ECHR 29-Nov-1991
ECHR Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; No violation of Art. 13; Just . .
Cited – Credit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council CA 20-May-1996
Builder’s Guarantee Ultra Vires LA
The council set out to provide a swimming pool using powers under s.19 of the 1976 Act. Purporting to use powers under s.111 of the 1972 Act, it set up a company to develop a site by building a leisure pool and time-share units, with a view to . .
Cited – Pressos Compania Naviera S A And Others v Belgium (Article 50) ECHR 3-Jul-1997
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient
‘possessions’ can be ‘existing possessions’ or assets, . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Stretch v West Dorset District Council CA 10-Nov-1997
A local authority has no ability to grant an option to renew a lease, even though it has the power to grant a lease and would benefit from the wrongful grant. The land was held for an express statutory purpose and was not ‘corporate land’ within the . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others CA 20-Oct-2009
The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Landlord and Tenant, Local Government

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184221

Balls Brothers Ltd v Sinclair: 1931

Whether an ‘improvement’ really improves the property is considered from the point of view of the tenant alone, so that work may constitute an improvement although it does not increase the value of the property at all or even reduces it.

Citations:

[1931] 2 Ch 325

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – John Lyon’s Charity v Shalson HL 12-Jun-2003
Work had been carried out by the leaseholders first to convert the property to multiple occupation, and subsequently back to single occupation. The tenant on exercising his right to purchase the freehold, claimed the cost shoud be reduced by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183558

John Lyon’s Charity v Shalson: HL 12 Jun 2003

Work had been carried out by the leaseholders first to convert the property to multiple occupation, and subsequently back to single occupation. The tenant on exercising his right to purchase the freehold, claimed the cost shoud be reduced by the increase in value attributable to the conversion.
Held: If the tenant increases the value of the landlord’s interest by expenditure on reconversion, it would not seem fair that he should have to pay a second time when the landlord’s interest is valued for the purposes of a sale of the freehold. The works dividing the house into flats constituted an ‘improvement’, and were carried out by a predecessor in title of the enfranchising tenant. But are not fall taken into account in determining the amount of the enfranchisement price for two separate reasons: (i) they were not carried out at the tenant’s expense; and (ii) had the house still been divided into flats at the valuation date they would not have increased the value of the property as at that date but reduced it. The tenant is however entitled to take advantage of any improvement, however ancient, which satisfies the conditions of the subsection.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-2003, [2003] UKHL 32, Gazette 31-Jul-2003

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Balls Brothers Ltd v Sinclair 1931
Whether an ‘improvement’ really improves the property is considered from the point of view of the tenant alone, so that work may constitute an improvement although it does not increase the value of the property at all or even reduces it. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183381

Warborough Investments Ltd v S Robinson and Sons (Holdings) Ltd: CA 10 Jun 2003

The applicant sought remission of the decision of the arbitrator on a rent review. The arbitrator had taken a different approach from that suggested by either party’s expert.
Held: Arbitrators should be give a wide margin of appreciation. Even if there had been an irregularity, the arbitrator had not gone so far wrong in coming to a conclusion was ‘materially different’ from a conclusion without the irregularity, as to allow any interference in his award.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Jonathan Parker

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 751, Gazette 19-Jun-2003, Times 09-Jul-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 1(a) 33 68

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Mentioned – Unit Four Cinemas v Tosara Investment Ltd 1993
The applicant challenged the fairness of the arbitrator’s actions. . .
Mentioned – Handley v Nationwide Anglia Building Society 1992
The issue on a challenge of an arbitration award was whether the arbitrator had acted fairly. . .
Cited – Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund CA 6-Feb-2003
The tenants sought to challenge the arbitrator’s award setting the rent payable under the lease. They claimed that he had improperly refered to his own experience of the market, to support his decision, and this committed a serious irregularity . .
Cited – Egmatra A G v Marco Trading Corporation 1999
The test of ‘substantial injustice’ is intended to be applied by a way of support of the arbitral process, not by way of interference with that process. It is only in those cases where it can be said that what has happened is so far removed from . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Cetelem Sa v Roust Holdings Ltd CA 24-May-2005
The parties were engaged in arbitration proceedings. The claimant had sought and obtained an interim mandatory order intended to prevent the defendant dissipating its assets in anticipation of an adverse ruling. The defendant sought leave to appeal. . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183349

Collins v Howard De Walden Estates Limited: CA 16 Apr 2003

The tenant sought the right to purchase the freehold reversion. Her landlord resisted saying that the properties were excluded from enfranchisement being divided vertically.
Held: The cases are fact dependent, and earlier precedents must be treated with caution after Malekshad. The words ‘which may reasonably be called a house’ are words of limitation. The buildings in this case were not divided vertically in the manner contemplated by section 2(1)(b). Appeal dismissed

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 545, Gazette 09-May-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1987 1 2(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes HL 1982
Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181378

Zarvos v Pradhan and another: CA 7 Mar 2003

The landlord had occupied the premises as a restaurant, but subsequently let it to the respondents. The landlord opposed renewal of the tenancy saying that it intended to recommence trading, and now appealed a finding in favour of the tenant.
Held: The landlord had failed to show a sufficiently strong case that his plans had financial viability. Evidence acquired later that a bank would loan the requisite amount was not admissible, since it might have been obtained in time for the trial. It was not necessary always for the court to consider the two limbs under 30(1)(f) sequentially.

Judges:

Ward, Clarke, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 208, Gazette 09-May-2003, [2003] 13 EG 114, [2003] 2 P and CR 122

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb and Another CA 25-Jul-2000
When considering an application for a re-hearing of a County Court action in order to consider and admit new evidence, the county court and High Court practice is now the same and the judge should consider the list of questions in Ladd v Marshall, . .
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – Gregson v Cyril Lord Ltd CA 1962
A landlord opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that he wished to conduct his own business from the premises, need not show that everything is in place to conduct the new business, but must be able to show that most obstacles to starting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Patel and Another v Keles and Another CA 12-Nov-2009
The landlord objected to the renewal of the lease, saying that he intended to occupy the premises for his own business. The court had found that he intended to sell the property.
Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. Parliament has not laid down . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Evidence

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180503

Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund: CA 6 Feb 2003

The tenants sought to challenge the arbitrator’s award setting the rent payable under the lease. They claimed that he had improperly refered to his own experience of the market, to support his decision, and this committed a serious irregularity under section 68(2).
Held: The system of arbitration expected an arbitrator to rely to some extent upon his experience. It was difficult to formulate a test which could identify the point at which an arbitrator relying upon his experience should disclose this and invite comment from the parties. The suggested distinction between ‘general expert knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of specific facts relevant to the particular case’ was not always easy to apply. In this case it might be unfair for him to draw upon more than the level of knowledge which one might expect of someone asked to arbitrate in such a case. Here surprise or sympathy for the tenant could not support a finding of any serious procedural irregularity.
Ward LJ said that the court should ‘try to assess how the [applicant] would have conducted his case but for the procedural irregularity’, and continued: ‘It is the denial of the fair hearing, to summarise procedural irregularity, which must be shown to have caused a substantial injustice. A technical irregularity may not. The failure to deal with a substantial issue probably will.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Jonathon Parker

Citations:

Times 12-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 84, [2003] 14 EG 124

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 68(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Fox v Wellfair Ltd CA 1981
An expert arbitrator should not in effect give evidence to himself without disclosing the evidence on which he relies to the parties, or if only one to that party. He should not act on his private opinion without disclosing it. It is undoubtedly . .
Cited – Top Shop Estates Ltd v Danino 1985
If using his personal knowledge of a specialised character rather than such as may be generally known to an expert in that area, then the arbitrator must afford the parties the chance to comment on that knowledge. . .
Cited – Egmatra A G v Marco Trading Corporation 1999
The test of ‘substantial injustice’ is intended to be applied by a way of support of the arbitral process, not by way of interference with that process. It is only in those cases where it can be said that what has happened is so far removed from . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Winchester City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1978
Forbes J said: ‘What does ‘new evidence’ in this context mean? It cannot mean that, because the inspector has not seen it before, everything that he sees is new evidence. If it meant that, every time that an inspector went on a view he would have to . .
Cited – Eagil Trust Co Ltd v Pigott-Brown CA 1985
There is no duty on a judge, in giving his reasons, to deal with every argument presented by counsel in support of his case. When dealing with an application in chambers to strike out for want of prosecution a judge should give his reasons in . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Warborough Investments Ltd v S Robinson and Sons (Holdings) Ltd CA 10-Jun-2003
The applicant sought remission of the decision of the arbitrator on a rent review. The arbitrator had taken a different approach from that suggested by either party’s expert.
Held: Arbitrators should be give a wide margin of appreciation. Even . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179014

Swindon Borough Council v Aston: CA 19 Dec 2002

The tenant had fallen into arrears, and a possession order had been made. Having cleared the arrears, the possession order fell, but the landlord purported to issue a new tenancy agreement, with no security of tenure. They now sought possession under the new tenancy agreement. The tenant appealed a finding that he no longer enjoyed the original secure tenancy.
Held: After the original breach, the tenant had continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser. However the continued occupation could not be referred to the tolerance of his occupation, and had to be characterized as a tenancy. All the arrears had been paid off so the order ceased to be enforceable. The later tenancy agreement could not alter that situation.

Judges:

Schiemann and Jonathan Parker LJJ, Pumfrey J

Citations:

Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1850, [2003] HLR 610

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marshall v Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 27-Apr-2001
There were three issues; (1) whether it was proper for the judge to have struck out disrepair proceedings when it could be seen that an application to discharge or rescind a suspended possession order would be likely to succeed (2) whether the . .
Cited – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
Cited – Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan CA 31-Jan-1996
The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Newham v Hawkins and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The landlord had obtained a possession order, but the tenant continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser, claiming entitlement as successors in title. Rent arrears had accrued, but even if the tenant had paid thenm the council would have . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
Cited – London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Ansell CA 19-Apr-2007
The landlord had obtained an order for possession based upon the secure tenant’s failure to pay rent. The order had been suspended. The tenant again fell into arrears, and the landlord chose to issue new proceedings rather than revive the old.
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178849

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 characteristics required of a letting scheme. It was not necessary to look beyond the leases themselves. The tenants were obliged to carry on particular trades, and were protected against competition from others wanting to pursue the same trade. There was no provision to allow the local authority landlord to vary these provisions, and together these established a scheme directly enforceable between the tenants. Restrictions on trade between more than two parties required notification to the competition authorities. The issue of whether mutual enforceability of restrictive covenants within shopping parades required registration remained to be addressed.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Buxton, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-2002, Gazette 30-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1645

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 84(12), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, Competition Act 1998 2(4) Sch 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – St Marylebone Property Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd 1988
Complaints were made by tenants in a block as to the behaviour of other tenants. A covenant in a lease granted in the early 1950s, restricted the user of premises to that of ‘grocers provisions wine spirit and beer merchants’. The premises had been . .
Cited – Re Ravenseft Properties Ltd’s Application 1978
A restriction in terms of the 1976 Act was not accepted merely by the agreement with the landlord. The tenant, in taking the lease, did not restrict a pre-existing freedom to trade on the demised premises, but rather obtained a new, but limited, . .
See also – Williams, Williams v Kiley (Trading As CK Supermarkets) CA 15-Jun-2004
Enforcement of user covenants . .

Cited by:

See Also – Williams, Williams v Kiley (Trading As CK Supermarkets) CA 15-Jun-2004
Enforcement of user covenants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178346

Brown v Shevill: 13 Nov 1834

A butcher sent a beast to the shop of W., another butcher, to be slaughtered : after it had been slaughtered, and the careass had remained in the shop for some time (but how long did not appear), W’s landlord distrained it for rent arrear : Held, that the carcass was privileged from distress.

Citations:

[1834] EngR 1020, (1834) 2 Ad and E 138, (1834) 111 ER 54

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.317696

Gil v Baygreen Properties Ltd: CA 5 Jul 2002

The applicant had defended an action for possession for arrears of rent, and counterclaimed for damages for failure to repair. A compromise was put to the court, and the court took that as consent and made a possession order. The tenant appealed.
Held: The court had not had jurisdiction to make the possession order and the appeal succeeded. To make a possession order, the statutory requirements had to be fulfilled, and the compromise agreement could not be read as an admission of the arrears as necessary under the Act. There had been no finding or judgement or express or implied admission, and the decision could not stand.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Clarke and Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-2002, Gazette 05-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1340, [2002] 49 EG 126, [2002] EGLR 42

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At Court of Appeal – Gil v Baygreen Properties Limited (In Liquidation) and Others ChD 19-Aug-2004
. .
Cited – G v E and Others CA 16-Jul-2010
E, now aged 19, suffered a genetic disorder leading to severe learning disability and lack of mental capacity. He had been in the care of his sister, the appellant, but had been removed by the local authority when his behaviour became disturbed. G, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174373

Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities Plc and others: CA 10 May 2002

The tenant sought a renewed tenancy under the Act, and the landlord opposed it saying that the property was to be redeveloped. The tenant contended that since his was an ‘eggshell’ tenancy, having a tenancy of surfaces within the property and not any part of the structure of the building, his tenancy could not be required for the redevelopment.
Held: Following Heath, the test was what degree of access was reasonably required for the landlord to carry out the intended works. In this case, the works could not be carried out without obtaining possession in the sense of putting an end to the tenant’s legal right to possession under the new tenancy.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

Times 30-May-2002, Gazette 13-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 621, [2002] 21 EG 142

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Heath v Drown HL 1973
The Landlord resisted a new tenancy under the 1954 Act saying that it intended to demolish and redevelop.
Held: The lease had provisions which would allow the landlord to do the works required without refusing a renewal. It should be renewed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171246

Saeed v Plustrade Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2001

The court considered a parking management scheme imposed by freeholders on an estate. The result would be to reduce the number of parking spaces from 13 to 4.
Held: (Sir Christopher Slade) ‘The lease in terms conferred upon the lessee ‘the right to park his private motor car’. The parties clearly contemplated that this was a right which would be capable of being exercised. As [counsel] pointed out on behalf of the claimant, the function of specifying a part of the retained property for parking purposes was equally clearly conferred upon the lessor for the purpose of giving effect of that right and not for the purpose of enabling him to extinguish it. The subject matter of the grant of a right to park was not on the true construction of paragraph 7 of the second schedule to the lease a right wholly determinable at the whim of the lessor.’ and ‘The attitude of the defendant as revealed in past correspondence appears to have been ‘since we have the power to specify a parking area it logically follows that we have the power to withdraw a specification or not to specify at all’. In my judgment, this attitude represents a breach of the well known and well established principle that a grantor shall not derogate from his grant.’ and ‘In my judgment, however, [counsel] was right when he pointed out that the relevant date for determining whether or not there has been a substantial interference is not 1985 but the date of the interference. His submissions in this context were very simple. But for the interference the claimant was able to park on some 12 or 13 spaces in competition with a number of other persons. At that point she was restricted to parking on 3 or 4 spaces in competition with the same number of persons. This must constitute substantial interference with the enjoyment of her right.’

Judges:

Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

[2002] 25 Estates Gazette 154, [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, [2002] EGLR 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Montrose Court Holdings Ltd and Another v Shamash and others CA 21-Feb-2006
Tenants challenging power of freeholders to impose parking regulations on occupiers of development. The landlord appealed.
Held: ‘the regulations in the present case – which limited the right to park to the parking of one vehicle at a time – . .
Cited – Sommer and Another v Sweet and Another CA 10-Mar-2005
The claimants had sought entry into theirs and their neighbour’s registered land titles of entries to acknowledge their rights of way. The neighbours appealed the finding of a right of way of necessity and by proprietary estoppel, and an order for . .
Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167869

Spring House (Freehold) Ltd v Mount Cook Land Ltd: CA 12 Dec 2001

A lease provided against the tenant leaving his goods outside the premises, and the landlords objected to motor vehicles being parked there.
Held: The words had to be interpreted in the light of the intentions of the parties at the time. Motor vehicles were not anticipated in the lease, but the words were not restricted to goods offered for sale. Nevertheless, the term ‘premises’ within the lease was to be construed not as the building, but as the entire habendum. The tenant was therefore not to be prevented from parking vehicles within the demised land.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward And Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1833

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stadium Finance Ltd v Robbins 1962
A motor car was goods for the purposes of the Act. The word ‘goods’ in the section does not appear to have anything other than the ordinary meaning, there is no reason why (a motor car) does not come within the definition ‘goods’. The word ‘goods’ . .
Cited – Earl of Lonsdale v Attorney-General 1982
The task of interpretation a lease has to be carried out against the background knowledge which would reasonably be available to the contracting parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the execution of the lease, applying the . .
Cited – Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck) CA 1990
When a contract is to be construed purposively, the court must look to the purposes of both parties, not just one of them. No apportionment was to be applied under the 1945 Act: ‘Similarly, we think that the facts and circumstances of the present . .
Cited – Whitley v Stumbles HL 1930
The case concerned whether, under the Act, an incorporeal right of fishing, demised as part of a lease of an hotel, was part of the ‘premises’ for the purpose of the Act.
Held: The standard conveyancing meaning of the word ‘premises’ has long . .
Cited – Bracey v Read 1963
A tenancy of land used for training horses was a business tenancy within the 1954 Act. The word ‘premises’ is not defined in the Act. Its legal meaning is the subject matter of the habendum in a lease, and it would cover any sort of property of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167848