Category: Landlord and Tenant

Cawthorne and others v Hamdan: CA 24 Jan 2007

Application for purchase of freehold of flats by purchaser nominated by leaseholders.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 6, [2007] 1 EGLR 67, [2007] 2 All ER 116, [2007] 2 P and CR 1, [2007] L and TR 14, [2007] Ch 187, [2007] 2 WLR 185, [2007] 11 EG 162, [2007] 5 EG 306

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.248012

Royal Bank of Scotland v Jennings, Pezaro and Circuitpoint (Brewery Road) Limited: CA 24 Oct 1996

The reddendum in the lease provided for a rent review: ‘there will be a rent review for each of the review periods’. The express machinery for such review could only be initiated by the landlord, but in refusing to initiate a review the landlord was frustrating the provisions of the contract that there should be a rent review.
Held: The court could substitute its own machinery: ‘It is the landlord’s contention, put very cogently by Mr Kim Lewison QC on their behalf, that on its true construction para 1 of the fourth schedule places the question of whether there will or will not be a rent review for any particular review period at the option of the landlord. It is a fairly common feature of rent review provisions in leases that the landlord is given the option whether or not to invoke the rent review machinery. This is commonly done by providing that the rent review machinery may be invoked by a notice in writing served by the landlord not later than some specified date. Clauses of that character have given rise to a number of cases and gave rise, in particular, to the leading case, United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904, in which the House of Lords ruled that the time limitations in rent review clauses were normally not to be treated as of the essence of the agreement so that a failure by the landlord to comply with the requisite time-limits did not necessarily preclude the service out of time of an effective notice invoking the rent review machinery. But in those cases the lessor had expressly been given the option whether or not to serve a notice invoking the rent review machinery. The present lease contains no such express option. Indeed, in my view, the implication to be gained from the lease as a whole, in particular the reddendum which I have read and paras 1 and 2 of the fourth schedule, is that there will be a rent review for each of the rental periods. . . . In my judgment, the issue depends upon whether construing the lease as a whole, the conclusion is justified that the landlord was intended to have that option. If the landlord was intended to have that option, the landlord was entitled to exercise it and to decide whether or not there should not be a rent review. But if the judge below was right in concluding that the provision in question was no more than mere machinery for the carrying out of rent reviews which were intended to happen in any event, then, on authority, there is no reason why the landlord’s failure to make the application should be allowed to frustrate the contractual intention discerned from the lease as a whole. The court will in that event if necessary supply machinery to prevent that frustrating refusal from achieving its purpose.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott, V-C

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 804, [1996] EGCS 168, [1997] 1 EGLR 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton HL 1982
The grantors of an option, which contained a machinery for fixing the price, had refused to appoint a valuer and that made it impossible for the contractual machinery for the valuation of the option price to work. The House of Lords held that the . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Addin v Secretary of State for the Environment ChD 1997
The lease provided for seven-yearly rent reviews. The landlord argued that the reddendum gave the right to trigger a review to him alone. If he chose not to do so, then no review would take place. The tenant contended that the opening words of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.140671

Beitov Properties Ltd v Martin: UTLC 8 May 2012

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – address of landlord in demand to tenant for rent or other sums – whether address of landlord’s agent sufficient – held that it was not – appeal dismissed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 s 47

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 133 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460253

London Borough of Havering v MacDonald: UTLC 17 May 2012

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – reasonableness of service charges – application of the provisions of section 18, 19 and 27A of the LTA 1985 – sufficiency of reasons – the LVT as expert – reasons on refusal to grant permission to appeal – disallowing costs

Judges:

Walden Smith Judge

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 154 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 18 19 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460258

Solitaire Property Management Company and Another v Holden and Others: UTLC 10 Apr 2012

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – reserve funds – lease providing that reserve funds could be used to meet any temporary deficiencies in monies available for general expenditure – whether LVT should have embarked on any consideration of the question of whether monies from the reserve funds had been so spent and (if so) whether any legally sufficient reasons given for its conclusions on this point and related points (raised by LVT) under Article 1 of First Protocal of ECHR and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 – jurisdiction of LVT – whether LVT entitled to disagree with and to refuse to follow a High Court decision regarding application of s.20(B) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – reasonableness of service charges – costs

Judges:

Huskinson Judge

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 86 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Consumer

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460252

Graves v Graves and others: CA 3 Jul 2007

The parties had divorced and settled financial provision, but the former wife and her children came to need a house and one of the claimant’s properties became vacant, and she was allowed to occupy it as a tenant, with the majority of the rent being paid through housing benefit. The council refused to pay housing benefit because one of the occupants was the claimant’s child. The claimant sought possession. The court was asked whether the mistake as to the payment of benefit made the tenancy contract void.
Held: The husband’s appeal succeeded. Neither party had appropriated the risk of what would happen if housing benefit was not payable. The payment of benefits was fundamental to both parties before the shorthold tenancy was created. A condition was to be implied into the agreement on the basis of the strict approach to the implication of terms; the term was an implied condition that if housing benefit was not payable, the tenancy would come to an end. Neither party had been prepared for te judge’s variation of the existing maintenance arrangements, and he was wrong to proceed with a variation.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Hughes LJ, Coleridge J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 660

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd HL 15-Dec-1931
Contract – Mutual Mistake Test
Bell was director and chairman of Niger, a subsidiary of Lever Brothers Ltd who dismissed him, offering and paying pounds 30,000 compensation. Lever then discovered that Mr Bell had made secret profits at the expense of Niger for which he could have . .
Cited – Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd CA 14-Oct-2002
The parties contracted for the hire of a ship. They were each under a mistaken impression as to its position, and a penalty became payable. The hirer claimed that the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake should forgive him liability.
Held: . .
Cited – Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd v Leighton’s Investment Trust Ltd HL 1945
Wartime regulations were implemented which prohibited the building on land which was already subject to a building lease which required the lessees to erect several shops.
Held: Even if the doctrine of frustration could apply to a lease, the . .
Cited – National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd HL 11-Dec-1980
No Frustration of Lease through loss of access
The tenant’s access to the premises was closed by the local authority because it passed by a derelict and dangerous building. The tenant argued that its tenancy was frustrated.
Held: The lease was not frustrated. The lease had a term of ten . .
Approved – Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord SA 1988
A contract of guarantee was made, but based upon a term of fundamental importance which was mistaken as to the existence of certain machines.
Held: The court must first look to the nature of the purported agreement. Steyn J said: ‘Logically, . .
Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Cited – Krell v Henry CA 1903
Mr Henry contracted to rent a flat located on Pall Mall from the plaintiff, Paul Krell for the daytime and on the days of the forthcoming cornation procession.. He was told that he would have an excellent view of, but this was not written down. He . .
Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Butters and Others v BBC Worldwide Ltd and Others ChD 20-Aug-2009
In the insolvency of Woolworths plc, a subsidiary sought to have valued its shareholding in a company in which the defendants were co-shareholders. It was argued that an earlier agreement between them had not be fully superceded by a subsequent one. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.254366

Perry v Shipway: 21 Apr 1859

The *minister of a Dissenting chapel, although duly elected, is at law only tenant at will of the trustees, in whom the legal estate is vested, and the majority of trustees in a trust constituted for such a purpose can bind the minority. Therefore, where a Dissenting minister, invited to preach for a year on probation, was, after preaching for some months, excluded from the chapel by the majority of trustees, on account of dissatisfaction as to his conduct, and afterwards, with the assistance of the minority of the trustees, got possession of the chapel and put on new locks, so as to exclude the majority of the trustees : The Court granted an injunction to restrain the minister and minority of the trustees from disturbing the legal right of the majority of the trustees to the possession and management of the chapel.

Citations:

[1859] EngR 490, (1859) 1 Giff 1, (1859) 65 ER 799

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Ecclesiastical

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.287842

Straudley Investments Limited v Mount Eden Land Limited: CA 7 Oct 1996

In considering a refusal of consent to a sub-letting, two considerations in addition to those already esatblished in law applied: ‘(1) It will normally be reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent or impose a condition if this is necessary to prevent his contractual rights under the [lease] from being prejudiced by the proposed assignment or sublease. (2) It will not normally be reasonable for a landlord to seek to impose a condition which is designed to increase or enhance the rights that he enjoys under the [lease].’

Judges:

Phillips LJ, Mummery LJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 673, [1996] EG 153, [1996] 74 P and CR 306

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Cited – Landlord Protect Ltd v St Anselm Development Company Ltd CA 20-Feb-2009
Guarantee beyond term was unreasonable
The tenant objected that the landlord’s conditional consent to an assignment was unreasonable. The purchaser was a dormant company which had never traded. The clause referred to ‘a respectable and responsible assignee or sub-tenant’. The tenant had . .
Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD 6-Oct-2016
Consent to assignment – delay
Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.140540