Category: Landlord and Tenant

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 meaning of the phrase ‘let as a separate dwelling’ had contracted and no longer included a tenancy for mixed purposes.

Judges:

Dillon LJ, Denning LJ, Sir John Megaw

Citations:

[1990] 1 QB 42

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 . .
Not Binding – 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. . .
Cited – Epsom Grandstand Association Ltd v Clarke CA 1919
The court considered whether a property, let and used as a public house on the ground floor with a flat above, fell within the ambit of the 1915 Act.
Held: Bankes LJ said that the property ‘was a dwelling house, and nonetheless so because it . .
Cited – Wolfe v Hogan CA 1949
An issue arose as to the purpose of the original letting. The defendant was the sub-tenant of a large divided room on the ground floor of a house in Chelsea which she used for business purposes. She eventually decided to live there as well.
Cited – Russell v Booker CA 1982
The leased premises consisted of a dwelling house and agricultural land which had constituted an agricultural holding. The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.242246

Chamberlain v Farr: CA 1943

A prospective purchaser of a house (No 1 Falling Lane) under construction had agreed that, if he were allowed into occupation before completion, he would occupy, pending completion, as tenant at will, paying a weekly sum. In the event, the house not being ready, he was allowed into possession of another house (No 7 Falling Lane) in the same road, paying a lesser sum. The landlord later sought determination of a standard rent of No 7 Falling Lane under section 11 of the 1928 Act. The question for decision was whether standard rent was to be determined by reference to the actual rent payable in respect of No 7 Falling Lane on 1 September 1939, or was to have regard to standard rents of similar houses in the neighbourhood – section 6 of the 1933 Act, as amended by section 3 of the 1939 Act. That turned on whether No 7 Falling Lane was ‘let’ on 1 September 1939.
Held: It was. It was immaterial, in that context, whether the tenancy was a tenancy at will or a weekly tenancy. Lord Greene: ‘Once it was pointed out that it was a tenancy and that this was a rent, the necessary result . . . follows that that was the figure at which the standard rent ought to have been determined.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1943] 112 LJKB 206

Statutes:

Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1928 11, Rent and Mortgage Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 6

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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.223955

Granada Theatres Ltd v Freehold Investment (Leytonstone) Ltd: CA 23 Mar 1959

The tenant claimed that the landlord had failed in its obligations of repair undertaken in the lease.
Held: Where the landlord was in default, a tenant may have a right to undertake the repairs itself, recovering the costs.
Jenkins LJ cited propositions of law, including: ‘In the event of the landlord failing to do the requisite repairs within a reasonable time after notice, the tenant is entitled to sue him in damages without first incurring expense by doing the repairs himself (Hewitt v. Rowlands (1924) 131 L.T. 757) . . The covenant is clearly not specifically enforceable, but I apprehend that, in the event of the landlord failing to do the repairs in a reasonable time, the tenant can, at his option, do the requisite repairs himself and claim the proper cost of so doing as damages flowing from the breach. ‘

Judges:

Jenkins, Romer, Ormerod LJJ

Citations:

[1959] EWCA Civ 3, [1959] Ch 592, [1959] 1 WLR 570, [1959] 2 All ER 176

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council TCC 12-Apr-2013
Application for compensation under s.106 of the Building Act 1984 for compensation as a result of the Council exercising its powers to prevent access to Hastings Pier under s.78 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The court rejected the defence, holding . .
Cited – Hastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The council appealed against the decision that it is liable to pay compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984, for loss to a business on Hastings Pier arising from its closure during 2006 under the council’s emergency powers. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.262819

Commercial Properties Ltd v Wood: CA 1967

A lease of commercial premises continued automatically under the Act. It became a monthly tenancy with rent payable in advance at the beginning of each mointh. The landlord served a notice under s25 on 4 October 1965 to terminate the tenancy on April 11 1966.
Held: The notice being in appropriate form was effective to terminate the tenancy on the date given.

Citations:

[1968] 1 QB 15, [1967] 2 All ER 916, [1967] 3 WLR 185, 111 Sol Jo 275

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Garston and Others v Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society CA 25-Jun-1998
The lease demised property ‘from the 24th day of June 1985 for a term of twenty years’ with a break clause requiring six month’s notice. The break notice was mistakenly calculated from the anniversary of the lease, not the anniversary of the term. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.185101

Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar: CA 19 Dec 2001

Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors.
Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the notice was likely to serve the purpose, and it could be valid. There was not a two stage test of first determining whether there was an obvious mistake. The test was rather whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice was substantially to the same effect as the correct version in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy. The purpose of the notice was not to set the terms of eth tenancy, because the tenancy did not yet exist, and was created by the tenancy and not by the notice, but rather and only to help the tenant identify which tenancy would be subject to these conditions.
Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, however, a detailed analysis of each decision is not a profitable exercise: the question whether a notice under section 20 is in the prescribed form or is in a form ‘substantially to the same effect’ is a question of fact and degree in each case, turning on a comparison between the prescribed form in Annex 1 and the particular form of notice given . . The question is simply whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice is ‘substantially to the same effect’ in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith;Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

Times 15-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2034, [2002] 1 P and CR DG22, [2002] 11 EG 156, [2002] 3 EGCS 127, [2002] L and TR 25, [2001] NPC 188, [2002] 1 EGLR 9, [2002] HLR 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 20, Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (1988 SI No 2203)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – York and Another v Casey and Another CA 16-Feb-1998
The plaintiffs let property to the respondents. The notice of shorthold tenancy issued prior to the tenancy commencing had obvious errors in the dates. The issue was as to its validity.
Held: The error was evident, the termination date . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – Panayi and Pyrkos v Roberts CA 1993
A shorthold tenancy notice was issued before the tenancy began, but it gave the wrong date for termination.
Held: The prescribed form required the correct termination date. A notice with a wrong date is not substantially the same as one with a . .
Cited – Clickex Ltd v McCann CA 26-May-1999
A failure by a landlord under the pre-1996 assured shorthold tenancy regime, to insert the correct tenancy dates in a shorthold notice, meant that the tenancy became an assured tenancy, since the arrangement failed to meet the requirements to create . .
Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
Cited – Manel and Others v Memon CA 20-Apr-2000
A landlord gave notice to quit to a tenant subject to an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The notice did not include the instructions and advice required by the Regulations, and so could not be said to be substantially in the same form. The . .
Cited – Roberts v Church Commissioners for England CA 1972
The court considered the nature of the habendum in a lease. Stamp LJ said: It is well settled that the habendum in a lease only marks the duration of the tenant’s interest, and that the operation of the lease as a grant takes effect only from time . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – McDonald and Another v Fernandez and Another CA 19-Jul-2003
The landlord served a notice to terminate a shorthold tenancy saying that he required possession on a certain day. The tenancy had been a periodic tenancy, and the date was not the last day of a period of the tenancy.
Held: The Act was . .
Applied – B Osborn and Co Ltd v Dior and others CA 22-Jan-2003
Notices were given which were incorrect.
Held: The notices were upheld despite the errors. . .
Cited – Lay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Cited – Ayannuga v Swindells CA 6-Nov-2012
The tenant appealed against refusal of penalties impose for the non-securing of a tenants deposit. The deposit had been secured, and the court had found that the landlord had substantially complied with the notice requirements by matters in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167406

Lloyd and others v Dugdale and Another: CA 21 Nov 2001

The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on the strength of that promise. JAD was given permission to store items there, but JAD Ltd took up possession. The sub-lease was never signed. The head-lease was assigned to the claimants, subject to any rights of the defendants.
Held: No notice was effective. Whatever estoppel arose, was in favour of JAD, not his company, and it was in possession, not him. The assignment defeated the claim of JAD Ltd by section 20. No constructive trust arose, because the claimant’s conscience was not deemed to be affected.
The court set out the principles applying: ‘(1) Even in a case where, on a sale of land, the vendor has stipulated that the sale shall be subject to stated possible incumbrances or prior interests, there is no general rule that the court will impose a constructive trust on the purchaser to give effect to them.
(2) The court will not impose a constructive trust in such circumstances unless it is satisfied that the conscience of the estate owner is affected so that it would be inequitable to allow him to deny the claimant an interest in the property.
(3) In deciding whether or not the conscience of the new estate owner is affected in such circumstances, the crucially important question is whether he has undertaken a new obligation, not otherwise existing, to give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest. If, but only if, he has undertaken such a new obligation will a constructive trust be imposed.
(4) Notwithstanding some previous authority suggesting the contrary, a contractual licence is not to be treated as creating a proprietary interest in land so as to bind third parties who acquire the land with notice of it, on this account alone: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . .
(5) Proof that the purchase price by a transferee has been reduced upon the footing that he would give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest may provide some indication that the transferee has undertaken a new obligation to give effect to it: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . . However, since in matters relating to the title to land certainty is of prime importance, it is not desirable that constructive trusts of land should be imposed in reliance on inferences from ‘slender materials’.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Gazette 06-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1754, [2002] 2 PandCR 13, [2001] 48 EGCS 129, [2001] NPC 168, [2002] WTLR 863

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 20(1) 70(1)(g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (1) CA 27-Oct-1987
Houses in Kensington were let together for a term of just over 50 years. There was just one title for the headlease. Informal subleases of parts had been granted granted at no rent. After several dealings with the titles, and the plaintiffs came to . .
Applied – Strand Securities Ltd v Caswell CA 2-Feb-1965
The leaving of furniture in a flat or having a key to the flat or making occasional use of it was not enough to constitute actual occupation. Where A permits B to occupy land on B’s own behalf by way of gratuitous licence, A’s capacity as licensor . .
Cited – Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland HL 19-Jun-1980
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest
The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding . .

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, Estoppel, Land, Contract, Trusts

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.166930

Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation v Next Plc Etc: ChD 5 Dec 1995

Trade fixtures attached by a tenant will not usually add to rent on review.

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-1995, [1996] 33 EG 91

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84415

Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama: ChD 9 Dec 1999

The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given.
Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words ‘any demised premises’ in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: ‘In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do – see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] 1 All ER 975, [2000] Ch 234

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5), Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Darstone Ltd v Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd 1969
. .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
Cited – Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others CA 21-Jul-2000
A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section . .
Cited – Ranson v Ranson CA 13-Dec-2001
There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84420

Unicomp Inc v Eurodis Electron Plc: ChD 7 May 2004

The tenant (CEM) fell into financial difficulties. In breach of covenant the premises were occupied by a related company (Unibol) which started paying the rent. The landlord (Fortwilliam) accepted the rent for nearly two years after having been put on notice of Unibol’s occupation and payment of the rent. During this period there were negotiations over an assignment of the lease which failed.
Held: The conduct of the landlord in failing to take action to enforce the covenants in the lease when it became clear to it that Unibol had taken possession of the premises and was paying the rent amounted to forbearance: ‘What occurred here, as a result of Fortwilliam’s failure to take any steps to enforce the covenant, was that Fortwilliam may have become estopped by waiver from forfeiting the lease as a result of that breach. By contrast with the circumstances of the Howard de Walden and Selous cases and of Holme v Brunskill, Fortwilliam did not take the initiative to vary the terms of the lease. There was no agreement between Fortwilliam and Holdings on behalf of CEM to vary its terms, simply an acceptance of payment of the rent coming due under the lease by another company in the same group as Holdings and CEM pending negotiations to assign the lease to that company which situation was allowed to continue after those negotiations had broken down.’

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 979 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Topland Portfolio No 1 Ltd v Smiths News Trading Ltd CA 21-Jan-2014
The claimant landlord sought to recover arrears of its tenant’s rent after the tenant’s insolvency from the defendant under the defendant’s guarantee of the rent. The defendant had argued successfully at first instance that the guarantee had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Company

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.196620

Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: ChD 29 Mar 1996

The landlord’s agents wrote to the proposed tenant offering a quarterly tenancy of the premises. The tenancy was to commence at a future date. The defendant endorsed the letter and returned it to say he would abide by the terms, and he was allowed into possession. He ceased to pay rent, and eventually came to claim that he had acquired the freehold by adverse possession.
Held: The appropriate limitation period of twelve years ran from the date of the accrual of the right of action. The landlord said that, as a lease in writing, time ran only from the date of a notice to quit. The tenant said no lease in writing existed unless it was dispositive, ie a document creating a leasehold estate. The document was not executed as a deed, and could only create a legal estate if it fell within s54(2) of the 1925 Act. Since it did not take affect in possession, it was reversionary and could not fall within the exception. A tenancy for less than three years but without immediate possession being taken must be by deed: ‘there was no ‘lease in writing’ for the purposes of paragraph 5(1) if the writing, however comprehensively set out and clearly referable to the existence of a new lease, was merely evidential. If there was to be a ‘lease in writing’ the writing itself had to ‘pass an interest’ and ‘operate a lease’ or ‘create an estate.’ and ‘Reversionary lease conferring no immediate right to take possession were altogether excluded form the ambit of section 54(2) of the 1925 Act. Such reversionary leases could take effect only if made by deed. Therefore the tenancy which undoubtedly came into existence was not one created by the tenancy document but rather one which arose by operation of law, by the payment and receipt of rent.’ The action was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.

Judges:

James Munby QC

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1996, [1996] 2 All ER 683

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 54(2), Limitation Act 1980 Sch1 p5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Doe d. Landsell v Gower 1851
The tenant was let into parochial property by the parish officers making an entry in the vestry book ‘We the churchwardens and overseers of P., do hereby agree to let to JB of . . . The newly erected cottage . . Situate . . . At the rent of 1s 6d . .
Cited – Moses v Lovegrove CA 29-Apr-1952
The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83180

Paragon Finance plc v City of London Real Property Co Ltd: ChD 16 Jul 2001

The claimants were underlessees of an office building. The offices had enjoyed a right of light for over a hundred years, and the freehold had acquired an easement of light by lost modern grant. The roadway having been closed, the defendant head landlords intended to build in a way which would interfere with the right. The defendants said that the rights were excluded by the express terms of the lease. The claimants said the building would be a breach of their right to quiet enjoyment of the appurtenances to the property.
Held: In granting a lease, a landlord could reserve the right to develop his own land as he wished, and thus to impinge on the tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment, but he could not require such a reservation in favour of land he did not own. In this case, the demised premises had acquired an easement of light under the doctrine of lost modern grant, and the lease purported to permit any development of adjoining land. The landlord and adjoining landowner proposed development, which would interfere with the right, and the tenant sought an order restraining them. The order was given, on summary judgment, as against the land-owner who was not his landlord.

Judges:

Rich QC

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 483

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832 3 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Overcom Properties v Stockleigh Hall Residents Management Ltd ChD 1988
The lease granted the defendants rights of access over the grounds and forecourts of a block of flats, but reserving to the lessor the right to develop ‘notwithstanding that the access of light or air or any other easement appertaining to the flat . .
Cited – William Hill (Southern) Limited v Cabras CA 1986
The tenant had affixed a sign to the premises with the landlord’s consent. The new landlord said that any licence was revocable. The judge had held that the lease had specifically granted a right to exhibit the signs.
Held: The landlord’s . .
Cited – Foster v Lyons and Co 1927
The lease contained a reservation which would allow the freeholder to build upon his neighbouring land whether or not it obstructed any rights of light in the demised premises.
Held: The reservation was effective to prevent a right of being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.160182

David John Passmore v Morland Plc, The Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) Ltd, The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Company Limited: ChD 8 Jul 1998

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Laddie

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Ch 312, [1998] 4 All ER 468

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Passmore v Morland and Co plc and Others CA 2-Feb-1999
The court was asked whether a beer supply agreement which, as between the original parties, was prohibited by Article 85(1) and so automatically void under the provisions of Article 85(2), may, nevertheless, be enforced by an assignee from one party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commercial

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.135889

Southwark London Borough Council v Mills and Others: ChD 11 Mar 1998

A claim for a breach of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment, through the sound of normal activities from a neighbour being heard, succeeded.

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1998, [1998] 3 WLR 49

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1979 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

First instance – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Appeal from – London Borough of Southwark v Mills and Others CA 29-Jul-1998
The authority appealed against an award made in arbitration proceedings brought by its tenant who complained that she could hear everything happening in a neighbouring flat, even though the tenants of that flat wer acting reaosnably.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.89430

Sportoffer Ltd v Erewash Borough Council: ChD 17 Mar 1999

The landlords were the local authority, and operated a municipal leisure centre. The tenants were the tenants of a squash club and applied for consent to a change of use to use as a leisure centre. The landlords objected on the ground that the proposed change would damage the viability of their municipal leisure centre.
Held: The refusal was upheld as reasonable. When considering whether the landlord had unreasonably withheld his consent to an alteration in the user of premises, the court must allow the landlord to take into account matters relating to other of its properties and to look only to its own interests: ‘I would find it surprising if a landlord could not reasonably take into account the circumstances of other property of his own, whether let or in hand, when considering an application for a consent to change of use under a lease. A shopping centre is an obvious example, but not the only case, where estate management considerations may suggest that one type of use be allowed under a lease but others not, because of the circumstances of other adjoining property. I find nothing in Balcombe L.J.’s judgment, nor in the case cited by him in relation to the proposition which I have mentioned, which suggests that this is not legitimate or that Sir John Pennycuick’s decision in Whiteminster Estates Ltd is wrong. I therefore hold that, following Sir John’s decision, a landlord can legitimately take into account considerations relating to adjoining property of his own, whether let or not.’

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999, [1999] 3 EGLR 136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Whiteminster Estates Ltd v Hodges Menswear Ltd 1974
The landlords carried on business as men’s outfitters. They also owned the shop next door which had been let as a cafe. The tenant applied for consent to assign the lease to another men’s outfitter, and the landlord refused on the ground that the . .
Cited – International Drilling Fluids v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd CA 20-Nov-1985
Consent to Assignment Unreasonably Withheld
The landlord had refused a proposed assignment of office premises from a tenant who had occupied the premises as its permanent offices, to a tenant who proposed to use the premises as serviced offices – that is, for short-term rent to others. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD 8-Jun-2004
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.89458