Category: Landlord and Tenant

Longacre Securities Ltd v Electro Acoustic Industries Ltd: CA 1990

The term was to expire on 25 March 1988. The landlord served a section 25(1) notice to determine the tenancy on 1 March 1989 to which the tenants responded with a notice under section 27(2) to determine the tenancy on 24 June 1988. In fact the tenants vacated the property on or immediately before 25 March 1988 and refused to pay rent for any subsequent period. The landlords sued in the County Court for unpaid rent. The County Court judge determined that the tenants were not liable.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Dillon LJ said: ‘It is quite plain therefore, under subsection (1) [of s.27], that the tenant for a fixed term who does not want to continue his tenancy under the Act and will be ceasing to carry on business in the premises on the expiration of the fixed term is expected to give notice to his landlord not later than three months before the date on which, apart from the Act, the tenancy would come to an end by effluxion of time. That is in line with the need for a landlord to have reasonable notice of his tenant’s departure, which one can find recognised in other provisions in the Act, such as section 24(3)(a) to which I have already referred. It is inconsistent, in my judgment, with the view adopted by the judge that if the tenant ceased carrying on business on the contractual date and left the premises he could do so without any notice at all because the provisions of the Act would automatically fall away. To my mind the key provision is that section 24(1) which provides that ‘a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies shall not come to an end unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act’. It follows that the tenancy, which was a business tenancy that the tenant took under the compromise agreement of December 1987, was a tenancy which could be terminated only in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even during its fixed term. When one comes to section 27(2) one has the opening phrase ‘A tenancy granted for a term of years certain which is continuing by virtue of section twenty-four of this Act’. It is submitted that that, in the present case, could apply only after March 25 1988 if the tenant was still in occupation, but the tenancy by virtue of section 24 is continued by the Act and is from the outset a continuing tenancy. Moreover, section 27(2) envisages a notice under the subsection being given before, as well as after, the date on which apart from the Act the tenancy would have come to an end; that is to say, in the present case, before March 25 1988. That necessarily shows that you cannot look at the tenancy as merely continuing by virtue of the Act after the date on which apart from the Act the tenancy would have come to an end. Subsection (2) envisages the notice given before that date, yet the tenancy is still a tenancy which is said to be continuing by virtue of section 24. That to my mind picks up the opening words of section 24, to which I have already referred, in the manner which I have mentioned. In the present case, therefore, my conclusion is that it was open to the tenant to serve the notice under section 27(2). The tenant was not bound to await the expiration of the landlord’s much longer notice. There is no reason why the tenant should be regarded as locked in by the duration of the landlord’s notice. But the tenant was not entitled to bring its liability to pay rent to an immediate end just by quitting the premises on the original contractual term date. That term date is subject to the provisions of section 24(1).’

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 EGLR 91

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 2591)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.219072

St Ermins Property Company Ltd v Patel and Others: CA 27 Jul 2001

A lease was granted for a long tenancy at a low rent. The premises were later divided into maisonettes, but were then again occupied jointly and as one unit. The tenants were found to be entitled to the protection of Part 1, and to a new lease at the same rent. The landlord had served two notices, one for each sub-unit.
Held: To be effective, the notice to quit must be served as one notice, and in respect of the whole of the premises. The two notices were ineffective, and the tenancy continued.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Arden LJ, Nourse

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 804

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part 1 3 (2) (a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136164

Montoya v Hackney London Borough Council: QBD 15 Jul 2004

The tenant claimed that the defendant local authority landlord had failed in its duty of repair. A jointly instructed expert gave evidence that the disrepair alleged was not disrepair at all because it was commensurate with the age and type of dwelling, and within the exceptions allowed for within s11(3). Nevertheless the judge at first instance found for the tenant that the defects constituted disrepair.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no evidential basis for the judge’s conclusion, and te judge should not have departed from the only expert evidence in the case.

Citations:

Unreported, 15 July 2004

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.235708

Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc: ChD 19 Apr 2000

The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The 1987 Act did not confer a right to pre-emption as such. Having gone through the procedure the landlord could still sell elsewhere. He was not under an obligation to disclose every term of the proposed disposal. The Act does not allow a right to claim damages for breach of statutory duty. The Act had provided for a remedy for a failure to serve a correct notice, and the second action was itself an abuse of process.

Judges:

Justice Laddie

Citations:

Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWHC Ch 178, [2001] Ch 493

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Michaels and Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited CA 20-Jun-1997
The respondent sought security for costs. One plaintiff was bankrupt, and an outstanding costs order had not been met.
Held: The matter should not be adjourned pending an application for legal aid, and nor should the considerable interest in . .

Cited by:

Approved – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD 3-Aug-2004
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . .
See Also – Michaels and Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited CA 20-Jun-1997
The respondent sought security for costs. One plaintiff was bankrupt, and an outstanding costs order had not been met.
Held: The matter should not be adjourned pending an application for legal aid, and nor should the considerable interest in . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Doubted – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Torts – Other

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135764

Hussein Walji, Zulikar Walji, Mohammed Iqbal Walji, Hussain Walji v Mount Cook Land Limited: CA 21 Dec 2000

The claimants sought a new lease under the Act. They were assignees and sureties of an underlease of the premises, but a new underlease had been taken by a company through which the partnership had intended to trade. The partnership had paid rent in response to demands sent to the company. The company had been struck off. A new lease was agreed, but the renewal procedure continued.
Held: A tenancy, or lease, is an interest in land springing from a consensual arrangement between two parties: one person grants to another the right to possession of land for a lesser term than he, the grantor, has in the land. The parties had negotiated and agreed terms. Possession continued under the new arrangement despite being formally subject to lease. A quarterly tenancy had been created.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 356

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – D’Silva v Lister House Development Ltd 1970
Even an unlawful sub-tenancy can have protection under Part II of the 1954 Act. The court described as fallacious the submission that section 74(1) does not extend to or answer the question whether the document has ever been delivered, saying: ‘The . .
Cited – Longrigg, Burrough Trounson v Smith CA 1979
The defendant dealer in antiques also lived in the property with his wife. He refused to leave after the expiry of the term, claiming a Rent Act tenancy. The lessors had accepted rent from the defendant undertenant who contended that thereby a new . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135623

Pickles v Greenbank: CA 20 Oct 2000

Where a tenancy had to be valued following a dissolution of the partnership to whom the tenancy had been granted and assignment by consent to one of the former partners, the valuation was to be as on a sale on the open market. A proper assessment had to be made of the evidence as at the date of assignment, and the judge could take a realistic view of what would be the intentions of both landlord and tenant toward the tenancy, and how those intentions might affect the open market valuation. The value was not the amount the tenant would have been prepared to accept for the tenancy, but how much he would have been prepared to offer to buy it.

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135695

Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others (Scotland) Clydesdale Bank plc v Davidson and Others: HL 16 Oct 1997

(Scotland) Joint pro indiviso proprietors of land were not able at law to create a binding lease in favour of one of their number, so as to defeat the proper claims of a third party. A person cannot enter into a contract with himself.
Held: The appellant was not able to assert his rights as an agricultural tenant so as to defeat the rights of the bank as mortgagee.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-1997, [1997] UKHL 55

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Price v Watson 1951
One pro indiviso proprietor of heritable property sought summarily to eject other pro indiviso proprietors from part of the property.
Held: Lord Keith doubted the need to sist the action of ejection: ‘That it can be used against a co-owner who . .
Distinguished – Pinkerton v Pinkerton OHCS 1986
An agreement by A to let a farm to himself, his wife and two sons was a valid lease which gave security of tenure. the Landlord and tenant were sufficiently different for a valid agreement between them to be possible. . .
Cited – Church of Scotland Endowment Committee v Provident Association of London Ltd 1914
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Jacobs v Official Receiver; In re Jacobs (a bankrupt) ChD 3-Apr-1998
The bankrupt was due to have his automatic discharge, but the Official Receiver applied on the day before for the discharge for an interim suspension of the discharge to allow consideration of his alleged lack of co-operation. The bankrupt said the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Scotland, Agriculture, Contract

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135193

Burton v London Borough of Camden: HL 27 Jan 2000

One tenant left the other in a flat subject to a protected secure tenancy. The legislation prohibited assignment of such tenancies. In order to support an application by the remaining tenant the departing tenant executed a deed purporting to release her interest in the tenancy.
Held: Arcane notions of the ownership of the entire property by each of two joint tenants should not be used to get around the legislation. Whether expressed as assignment, surrender, release or otherwise, it could not change the nature of the tenancy.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] 2 WLR 427, [2000] UKHL 8, [2000] 2 AC 399, [2000] 1 All ER 943, (2000) 79 P and CR D38, [2000] 1 EGLR 49, [2000] 14 EG 149, [2000] 1 FCR 481, [2000] NPC 16, (2000) 32 HLR 625, [2000] L and TR 235, [2000] BLGR 289, [2000] EG 23

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Hickin SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimant’s parents were secure joint tenants. After her father left, the mother later died. The respondent served a notice on the father terminating the tenancy since as the survivor and not resident, he was not entitled to continue the tenancy. . .
Cited – Sims v Dacorum Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
Husband and wife had been joint tenants of the council. On the breakdown of the marriage, W gave notice to quit. H defended the council’s possession action, saying that it was an infringement of his human rights for him to lose his tenancy and home. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Benefits

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135057

Marlborough Park Services Ltd v Leitner: UTLC 31 Jul 2018

Landlord and Tenant – Service Charges – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 27A(4) – whether FTT has jurisdiction to hear application – matters ‘agreed or admitted’ – matters ‘subject to determination by a court’ – application to strike out under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, rule 9 – appeal from refusal to strike out tenant’s application allowed in part

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 230 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622346

CQN RTM Co Ltd v Broad Quay North Block Freehold and Another: UTLC 31 Jul 2018

Landlord and Tenant – Right To Manage – whether a building ‘structurally detached’ and therefore self-contained – whether the right to manage acquired – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, s. 72

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 183 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 72

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622345

Avon Ground Rents Ltd v Child: UTLC 20 Jun 2018

Landlord and Tenant – Administration Charge – County Court claim transferred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for determination – Other claims not transferred but determined by FTT judge sitting as a judge of the County Court – Appropriate procedure – Costs

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 204 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.620099

Coates v Marathon Estates Ltd: UTLC 1 Feb 2018

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER – enforcement of FTT’s order requiring provision of documents and computer records – whether order complied with – whether order should be set aside – jurisdiction of Upper Tribunal in relation to enforcement of final orders of FTT – s.24(4), Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – s.25, Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – rules 8(5) and 20(2), Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013 – application refused

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 31 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.603252

Liverpool Quays Management Ltd v Moscardini: UTLC 25 Jul 2012

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – security services – whether costs reasonable – held that they were – service charge collection fees – whether properly included in service charge and whether reasonable – held that they were – legal fees for proceedings by lessees against third party – whether properly included in service charge – held they were not – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 244 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.463432