Category: Landlord and Tenant

McGowan and Gibbons v Jewell: CA 28 Feb 2002

The tenant took farm premises subject to a lease allowing its use for farming purposes only. It prevented its use as a market garden, which would have allowed compensation to be claimed on its termination. He had come to operate several activities from the farm. The landlords claimed that the new activities were in breach of the tenancy agreement.
Held: The tenancy, not the 1948 Act, defined the uses permitted by the lease. The proposed activities of a farm shop and educational visits were not agricultural purposes within the meaning of the tenancy agreement.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance, And, Mr. Justice Park

Citations:

Gazette 14-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 145

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Howkins v Jardine CA 1951
There was a tenancy from year to year of 7 acres which had on them three cottages, which the tenant in fact sub-let to persons not engaged in agriculture. The tenancy itself contained provisions usual in agricultural tenancies, and the tenant used . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167734

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 appealed saying that the section imposed upon them a duty to repair only, and not an obligation to ensure that the pipes were physically or mechanically capable of supplying water.
Held: There was a distinction between the duty to keep in repair, and the duty to keep in proper working order. It was not in proper working order if, through a defect in construction or design, it was not supplying what it should. The landlord was not under an obligation to provide s supply which could survive any changes in circumstances, but he did have a duty to maintain a system which could reasonably cope with any changes in the supply which might be expected. ‘an installation will be in proper working order if it is able to function under those conditions of supply that it is reasonable to anticipate will prevail.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 150

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167723

Thirunavukkrasu v Brar and Another: ChD 24 Sep 2018

The statutory mechanism for commercial rent arrears recovery was not the equivalent of the old common law right to distrain for arrears of rent. Levying distress under the old common law right was an unequivocal recognition that the lease was continuing on the day of distress itself. Whether the exercise of the new statutory mechanism was an unequivocal recognition of the continuation of the lease had to be considered in the context of the actual facts.

Judges:

Marcus Smith J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2461 (Ch), [2018] WLR(D) 590

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 72 79

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.625507