Category: Landlord and Tenant

Crown Estate Commissioners v Town Investments Limited: QBD 1992

When renewing his tenancy, the tenant may not pray in aid its own breaches of covenant in order to reduce the new rent.

Judges:

Barry Green QC

Citations:

[1992] 1 EGLR 61

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lyndendown Ltd v Vitamol Ltd CA 6-Jul-2007
At the end of the lease, the subtenant had failed to comply with his obligation to repair the property, leaving the head tenant liable to the landlord. The landlord had issued a letter which forgave the tenant from his obligations.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.259147

Murphy v Hurly: HL 1922

Consequences of a defect in the repair of a sea wall possession of which had been retained by the landlord. The House considered the rule that a landlord is not liable under a covenant with his tenant to repair premises which are in the possession of the tenant and not of the landlord, unless and until the landlord has notice of the disrepair.
Held: The rule did not apply in this case.
Lord Buckmaster said that the rule had to be considered by reference to ‘the actual facts existing in each case’, and it was based ‘upon the consideration whether the circumstances are such that knowledge of what may be required to be done to comply with the covenant cannot reasonably be supposed to be possessed by the one party while it is by the other’.
Lord Atkinson described ‘the presumption upon which the right to notice is stated to depend’ as being ‘that the tenant being in occupation has a full opportunity of seeing and knowing the condition of the premises he occupies and their need of repair, while the landlord has no such opportunity’.
Lord Sumner said that the reason for the rule was ‘(1) that the tenant is in occupation and the landlord is not; (2) that the tenant, therefore, has the means of knowledge peculiarly in his own possession . .; and (3) . . the repairs of dwelling-houses . . are . . not . . such as to demand of the landlord incessant vigilance . .’

Judges:

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1922] 1 AC 369

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622320

Tredway v Machin: CA 1922

Judges:

Sir Richard Collins MR

Citations:

(1904) 91 LT 310

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622319

Francia Properties Ltd v St James House Freehold Ltd, Re: St James House: UTLC 9 Apr 2018

Leasehold Enfranchisement – Roof Top Development Potential – LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT – roof top development potential – refusal of planning permission before valuation date – planning permission granted after FTT decision – FTT wrong to take into account refusals after valuation date – appeal allowed and value of roof top development re-determined at pounds 100,000

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 79 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.608672

Avon Ground Rents Ltd v Cowley and Others Re: The Interchange: UTLC 21 Mar 2018

Landlord and Tenant – Service Charges – Reasonableness – reasonableness of sums payable in advance – relevance of NHBC warranty – whether necessary that receipt of funds from NHBC be guaranteed before being taken into account in determining reasonableness of advance payments – ss.19(2), 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 92 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19(2) 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.606884

Owendale Pty Ltd v Anthony: 24 Aug 1967

Austlii High Court of Australia – Landlord and Tenant – Lease – Determination – Forfeiture – Covenant to commence erection of building within specified time – Clearing operations commenced – Whether breach – Acceptance of rent after notice of breach – Conduct of lessor and lessee – Waiver – Crown lease – Statutory procedure for determination upon breach of covenant – Effect of conduct upon statutory right to determine – Notice – Requirement that conditions for failure to comply with andwhich lease may be determined be fully set out – Reference to terms of lease – Whether sufficient – Signature on notice – Delegation of function by Minister – Delegate designated by office held – City Area Leases Ordinance 1936-1964 (A.C.T.), ss. 6,22.*
Windeyer J set out the principles behind the waiver of a right to forfeit a lease: ‘A waiver in this sense is more properly understood as an election. The essence of the doctrine, in cases between landlord and tenant, is that where a Lease contains a provision for forfeiture and a right of re-entry upon breach of a covenant by the lessee, then, upon a breach occurring, the lessor can either take advantage of his right of forfeiture and re-entry or waive this and treat the Lease as still subsisting. If, with knowledge of a breach, giving him a right of re-entry, he does an act inconsistent with his avoiding the Lease, he is deemed to have elected not to avoid it. Anything which a landlord does or says which is an unequivocal recognition of the continued existence of the Lease when he is aware of facts which would have given him a right of re-entry will amount to a waiver of that right. One act which, by the common law, is always regarded as unequivocal, and therefore necessarily a waiver of a right of re-entry on account of a breach of covenant by the lessee, is the lessor’s acceptance, with knowledge of the fact of the breach, of rent accrued due after the breach. Apart from any special term in the Lease . . or any statutory modification of the common law, acceptance of rent due in respect of a current period is an obvious recognition of a tenancy then subsisting.’

Judges:

Windeyer J, Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Owen JJ

Citations:

[1967] HCA 52, (1967) 117 CLR 539

Links:

Austlii

Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.568017

MacMillan and Co Ltd v Rees: CA 1946

The lease of premises as an office allowed the tenant or her business partner were authorised to sleep when required.
Held: The Court drew a distinction between an authorised user of merely sleeping or eating on premises and use as a dwelling house. Authorised acts, which were residential in character, did not make the business premises a dwelling house

Judges:

Evershed J

Citations:

[1946] 1 All ER 675

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.554548

Wallace and others v Manchester City Council: CA 23 Jul 1998

Damages payable to a tenant for a landlord’s failure to repair whilst the tenant remained in the property were not separate damages for discomfort and diminution in rental value since these amounted to the same thing: ‘for periods when the tenant remains in occupation of the property, notwithstanding the breach of the obligation to repair, the loss to him requiring compensation is a loss of comfort and convenience that results from living in a property that was not in the state of repair it ought to have been in if the landlord had performed his obligation’ and ‘Thus the question to be answered is what sum is required to compensate the tenant for the distress and inconvenience experienced because of the landlord’s failure to perform his obligation to repair? Such sum may be ascertained in a number of different ways, including, but not limited to a notional reduction in the rent. Some Judges may prefer to use that method alone (McCoy v Clarke), some may prefer a global award for discomfort and inconvenience (Calabar and Chiodi), and others prefer a mixture of the two (Sturoloson v Mauroux and Brent LBC v Carmel). But in my judgment they are not bound to assess damages separately under heads of both diminution in value and discomfort. Whilst in cases within the third proposition these heads are alternative ways of expressing the same concept.’
The essence of calculating of quantum is that it is a contractual claim, not one in tort. The court sets out to quantify the difference in value between the disprepaired property and the property as it would be if the landlord had fulfilled the repairing obligation. Discomfort and inconvenience for the tenant are a part of this head, not a separate, tortious, head of damages.

Judges:

Morritt LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1166, [1998] 3 EGLR 38, [1998] 30 HLR 1111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Calabar Properties Ltd v Stitcher CA 1983
The landlord had failed in his duty to repair. One tenant’s health suffered because of the damp, and they had to rent other premises.
Held: The landlord has only a reasonable time to effect repairs once he has been given notice of the need for . .

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 . .
Cited – English Churches Housing Group v Shine CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant was a secure tenant of English Churches Housing Group. He was unemployed and lived on benefits. He claimed damages against his landlord for breaches of the repairing covenants implied by section 11. The court considerd the appropriate . .
Cited – Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90262

Westminster City Council v Clarke: HL 29 Apr 1992

An occupant of a hostel for homeless and vulnerable single men had only a licence to occupy the room, and was not a tenant. There was a resident warden and a team of support workers. The intention was that residents should use the hostel as a temporary base as part of their rehabilitation.
Held: An agreement which gives a right to exclusive possession is prima facie a tenancy. The accommodation was however provided for a clear purpose, and that would require the ability to ask residents to swap rooms or to move on. ‘This is a very special case which depends on the peculiar nature of the hostel maintained by the Council, the use of the hostel by the Council, the totality immediacy and objectives of the powers exercisable by the Council and the restrictions imposed on Mr Clarke. The decision in this case will not allow a landlord private or public to free himself from the Rent Acts or from the restrictions of a secure tenancy merely by adopting or adapting the language of the licence to occupy.’

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

Gazette 29-Apr-1992, [1992] AC 288, [1992] 24 HLR 360, [1992] UKHL 11, [1992] 1 All ER 695

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins HL 11-Oct-2001
Can a single room within a hotel comprise a separate dwelling within the 1988 Act and be subject to an assured tenancy?
Held: A single room can be a dwelling. Each case must be interpreted in its own light as a question of fact, but respecting . .
Cited – Parkins v City of Westminster CA 20-Nov-1997
The council granted what it called a licence to the applicant. He was one of their employee teachers, and they wanted to supply accomodation. They appealed refusal of possession on the basis that he had become a secure tenant under the Act. It had . .
Cited – Brennan v London Borough of Lambeth CA 3-Jun-1997
The appellant sought to resist his eviction from temporary hostel accomodation provided to him by the local authority, saying that the provisions of the 1977 Act protected him.
Held: The agreement was a licence excluded from protection by the . .
Cited – Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust HL 24-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to oblige the respondent to repair his flat under the 1988 Act. The respondent replied that the arrangement was a licence only, and not protected under the Act.
Held: The housing association had a temporary licence to . .
Cited – Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA 20-Jul-2004
The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90421

William Watson Stirling v Leadenhall Residential 2 Ltd: CA 29 Jun 2001

Held. A tenant who continued to stay in property after a possession order was granted, but who paid a sum equivalent to rent as it fell due, and something off the arrears, did not necessarily thereby become a tenant again, but could be viewed as a tolerated trespasser. That status might be compromised as against the landlord where he requested a sum which was, in effect, a rent increase. That request was incompatible with the terms of the court order granting him possession, and created a new tenancy.

Judges:

Judge LJ, Latham LJ, Lloyd J

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1011, [2002] I WLR 499, [2001] 3 All ER 645, [2002] L and TR 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
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 by:

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

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89565

Standard Life Company Ltd v Greycoat Devonshire Square Ltd: ChD 10 Apr 2000

A clause in a lease which reserved rent and additional contributions to the fees and other sums payable to the tenant by virtue of his occupation did not mean that the tenant had to pay on part of sums received by him arising from the dilapidations of a sub-tenant. The definition was of ‘the aggregate of all rents fees and other moneys from whatever source . . (payable) by virtue of its estate or interest.’ The sum was compensation for damage to the property and was not derived from the estate in the land.

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-2000, Gazette 14-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89488

Staszewski v Maribella Ltd: CA 28 Mar 1997

A landlord’s furnishing to his tenants of the particulars of a purchase must state the reason for the statement. A landlord’s reply to a notice which was equivocating as to the validity of claim was not a valid answer.

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-1997, Gazette 16-Apr-1997

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89509

Lester v Ridd: CA 1990

A farm with 23 acres was let in 1902. The term passed to Alfred and William Burge, a father and son farming in partnership. On the later dissolution of the partnership, the house and five acres of land were assigned to Alfred and the remaining 18 acres were assigned to William. The house and five acres ceased to be used for agricultural purposes in 1982; but the remaining 18 acres continued to be farmed. The court was asked whether an assignee of part of the leased house would be able to acquire the freehold under the 1967 Act. The freeholder responded that it was part of an agricultural holding and therefore exempt.
Dillon LJ said: ‘One question to be considered is whether the effect of the partition, or of the partition and the subsequent assignment to the plaintiffs of their part of the land, is to create two separate tenancies of two separate holdings, each of which has to be looked at on its own. But if that is not the effect, it is still necessary, despite the partition, to look at the land comprised in the 1902 lease as a whole. If the land is looked at as a whole, the answer, in my judgment, must be . . that the whole of the land, with an exception only which does not substantially affect the character of the tenancy, is still let for use as agricultural land. If the land comprised in the 1902 lease has to be looked at as a whole the plaintiffs must fail because, on that approach, the [house] assigned to them, of which they desire to have the freehold, is still comprised in an agricultural holding.’ and that ‘an assignment of separate parts of leasehold property to separate assignees for the residue of the term is now-a-days tolerably rare.’

Judges:

Dillon, Slade LJJ

Citations:

[1990] 2 QB 430

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(3), Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gammon v Vernon 1729
The lessor brought debt against the assignee of the moiety of the term for the moiety of the rent reserved on the lease, arid it was resolved by the whole Court, that the action well lay. . .
Cited – Hare v Cator 1778
Declaratiori against the defendant as assignee of all the estate, andc. in certain premises: evidence that he is assignee of part only is a fatal variance. . .
Cited – Stevenson v Lambard 6-Jul-1802
The landlord brought an action in covenant against an assignee of the term claiming rent. The assignee pleaded (amongst other things) that he had been evicted from half the land by title paramount. The question for the court was whether, in those . .
Cited – Whitham v Bullock CA 1939
The assignee of part of the property comprised in the lease had paid the whole rent in order to stave off a threatened distress. He then sued the assignee of the other part for a contribution.
Held: He succeeded.
Counsel for the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.448995

Green v 180 Archway Road Management Co Ltd: UTLC 23 Jul 2012

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – lessor covenanting to insure in joint names of lessor and lessee – lessor placing insurance with lessee’s name omitted – whether lessor entitled to recover a proportion of the premium

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 245 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.463430

Gateway Property Holdings Ltd v 6-10 Montrose Gardens Rtm Company Ltd: UTLC 8 Sep 2011

LANDLORD AND TENANT – right to manage – time of application of claim for right to Manage – notice of invitation to participate prior to making claim – appeal allowed – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ss71-80, 84.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 349 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.445687

Moore v Clark: 5 Jul 1813

If the Plaintiff declares on a general covenant to repair a messuage, and assigns a breach, per quod he was put to expence, it is sufficient for a tenant to plead performance as to all except as to the repairs of a party-wall, and that those repairs were rendered necessary, and were done under the statute 14 G. 3, c, 78, and did not become necessary by the Defendant’s default, and that the Defendant was not the owner of the improved rent. – -And if the Plaintiff is possessed of any facts to charge the Defendant with a proportion of the repairs, he ought to reply them.

Judges:

Sir James Mansfield CJ and Gibbs J

Citations:

[1813] EngR 479, (1813) 5 Taunt 90, (1813) 128 ER 620 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Makin v Watkinson 1870
The court considered the extent of a Landlord’s duty of repair where he had entered into an express covenant for the purpose. . .
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.338244

Makin v Watkinson: 1870

The court considered the extent of a Landlord’s duty of repair where he had entered into an express covenant for the purpose.

Citations:

(1870-71) LR 6 Ex 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Moore v Clark 5-Jul-1813
If the Plaintiff declares on a general covenant to repair a messuage, and assigns a breach, per quod he was put to expence, it is sufficient for a tenant to plead performance as to all except as to the repairs of a party-wall, and that those repairs . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.259928

Morgan v Liverpool Corporation: CA 1927

The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the defect was latent one (of which the plaintiff did not know and about which accordingly he could not give any notice) but it was contended that (there was a statutory obligation on the landlord which was different from that contained in an ordinary covenant and that in the Act, there were no words requiring that any notice should be given to the landlord. He said that L failed to perform the statutory obligationn that the house would be ‘kept in all respects reasonably fit ‘for human habitation.’ L had a right to enter the property to inspect its condition.
Held: L was not liable. Liability would be conditional upon his having been given notice of any defects even though they were latent ones. The right to enter to inspect did not change this.
Lord Hanworth MR said that it was long established that where there is a covenant on the part of a landlord to keep premises in repair the tenant must give notice to the landlord of what is out of repair. Notice was required whether or not the landlord had means of access. The fact that the origin of a covenant was statutory did not give the covenant any higher authority than one inserted in a contract by the parties.
Atkin LJ said: ‘Here is a case of something which arose quite suddenly. It is possible that a very careful inspection of the window cords might have revealed the state in which they were, but there are many other defects which arise quite suddenly, leaks quite suddenly spring up in joints of water pipes and gas pipes, and so on, and to say that the landlord is responsible for the consequences of those not being in repair in circumstances in which no time could have elapsed between the time when the defect first arose and the time when the injury from it occurred, would certainly be to impose a very harsh obligation upon a landlord which the Courts do not impose except subject to a condition that he must receive notice of the defect. To my mind in those circumstances it is clear that, if the landlord gives the exclusive occupation to the tenant, the landlord does not in fact know, and in this case could not know of the defect.’
In ordinary circumstances L’s obligation to repair does not come into existence until he has notice of the defect which his contract to repair requires him to make good: ‘I think the power of access that is given, extensive though it may be, does not take the case away from the principle from which the Courts have inferred the condition that the liability is not to arise except on notice. The position is quite a satisfactory one, because as soon as the tenant is aware of the defect he must then give notice, and if the landlord does not repair it, the landlord will be liable. If in fact the tenant is not able to ascertain the defect, there seems to be no reason why the landlord should be exposed to what remains still the same injustice of being required to repair a defect of which he does not know, which seems to me to be the real reason for the rule. This was a case in which notice was not given to the landlord. As I have said, it appears to me that, as soon as the defect became so known by the fall of the sash, the tenant was able to give notice to the landlord and did give notice. In my view the landlord then became under a liability to repair in the circumstances of this case, because if he did not, the house would be in a state not in all respects fit for human habitation ; but as no notice was given, I think the landlord was not liable.’
Lawrence LJ said: ‘On the question of notice I am in complete agreement with the judgments delivered by the Master of the Rolls and Atkin LJ and have very little to add. In my opinion the established rule is that the obligation of the landlord to keep the premises in repair is not broken unless notice has been given to him of the want of repair, and that mere knowledge is not sufficient to saddle the landlord with liability. The foundation of such rule is that the tenant in occupation is generally in a far better position to know of any want of repair. I am further of opinion that for the reasons stated by Atkin LJ the rule applies to latent as well as to patent defects, and certainly applies to the defect which existed in the present case.’

Judges:

Lord Hanworth MR, Atkin LJ, Lawrence LJ

Citations:

[1927] 2 KB 131

Statutes:

Housing Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – McCarrick v Liverpool Corporation HL 1947
Premises’ Defect – No Notice Liability on L
The tenant’s wife was injured falling from defective stone steps leading from the kitchen to the back kitchen of the house. Under section the 1936 Act, the judge found the house not to have been kept in the state required. No notice of want of . .
Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .
Cited – Cunningham v Birmingham City Council Admn 6-May-1997
The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural . .
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.259929

Norris (T/a J Davis and Son) v Checksfield: CA 23 Apr 1991

The employee occupied a dwelling belonging to his employer and for the better performance of his duties. He was summarily dismissed for misconduct.
Held: The 1977 Act did not apply, and the owner had not been obliged to give a notice under the 1977 Act. He did not occupy the premises under a periodic tenancy even though he paid a reduce and regular rent. The term of the licence was that of his employment.

Citations:

[1991] 4 All ER 327, Times 23-Apr-1991

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.259634