Category: Landlord and Tenant

Ezekiel v Orakpo: CA 1977

A lease had been forfeited for non payment of rent. The lessor then took proceedings for possession. The tenant claimed that the action was invalid because a receiving order had been made against him in the meantime.
Held: The Court rejected the tenant’s contention on the ground that the claim for possession was not a remedy against the tenant’s property. Shaw LJ said: ‘It is clear that the section intends to inhibit any form of remedy or action which is directly designed to enforce payment of the debt which is owed. What has first to be considered is whether an action in which an order for possession is sought where a lease has been forfeited for default in payment of rent, comes within the terms of s.7(1) at all. If it does not, it is not necessary to get the leave of the court under s.7 before commencing such an action. In our view, an action for possession following the forfeiture of a lease is not within the terms of the section, and this is so whatever the ground of forfeiture to which the lessor has recourse under the covenants in the lease. The nature of the action is the same in every case, namely, that the right and interest of the lessee to possession has been terminated before its natural expiry in pursuance of a contractual provision in his lease so that he become a trespasser if he continues in occupation of the premises. The obverse of this situation is that the lessor becomes entitled to possession on forfeiture of the lessee’s interest. The action for re-entry is in the nature of an action in trespass. It is not a remedy against the property of the debtor in respect of a debt, notwithstanding that the occasion of the forfeiture is default in payment of the rent reserved by the lease. The consequence of forfeiture (subject to the power of the court to grant relief) is to determine the lessee’s interest. It is not a remedy enforcing payment of the rent due and it is not within the ambit of s.7(1).’

Judges:

Shaw LJ

Citations:

[1977] QB 260

Statutes:

Bankruptcy Act 1914 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Ezekiel v Orakpo CA 16-Sep-1996
A charging order was made in 1982 to secure pounds 20,000 under a judgment given in 1979. The judgment creditor did not seek to enforce the charging order until almost 12 years had elapsed since the making of the charging order. An order for . .
Cited – Harlow District Council v Hall CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had been subject to a possession order in respect of his secure tenancy. He was later adjudged bankrupt. He asserted that the bankruptcy specifically prevented other action to enforce the debt, and the suspended possession order was . .
See Also – Ezekiel v Orakpo ChD 4-Nov-1994
The claimant had obtained a charging order to secure a judgment debt, but took no steps to enforce it for more than twelve years. The chargee denied that it could any longer be enforced, and also that the order carried interest when interest had not . .
Cited – Boscawen and Others v Bajwa and Others; Abbey National Plc v Boscawen and Others CA 10-Apr-1995
The defendant had charged his property to the Halifax. Abbey supplied funds to secure its discharge, but its own charge was not registered. It sought to take advantage of the Halifax’s charge which had still not been removed.
Held: A mortgagee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.240048

Lesley and Company v Cumming: KBD 1926

The County Court had held that the landlords were not entitled to recover possession of a flat of which the defendant was tenant because the premises had not been taken out of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Act by the tenant twice sub-letting furnished the whole of the premises with the landlord’s permission for periods of a year, which periods had expired before the commencement by the landlord of proceedings to recover possession.
Held:
Roche J said: ‘I do not think that the effect of the letting of the whole premises furnished to Mr Moore and Mrs Wilcox (with it is to be noted, the consent of the plaintiffs) was that the premises both became and continued for all time premises to which the Acts of 1920 and 1923 did not apply. In my opinion, at any rate, from the termination of those sub-tenancies Robert Cumming was in possession; his tenancy was a statutory one and the premises were not let furnished.’
Mackinnon J: ‘I do not suppose that Mr Stone (counsel for the landlord) would have sought to argue that Prout -v- Hunter went as far as to apply in a case where the dwelling house had been let furnished during the currency of the original lease, say in 1919 or 1920, but he does seek to say the letting furnished for, I suppose, however short a period after the tenant became a statutory tenant took the house out of the category of a protected house and put it into the category of unprotected house. It is only necessary to consider what startling results that contention would lead to in order to see that that argument must be wrong. For instance, if there be, as well there may be, a person in occupation of a house at Henley on Thames as what is called a statutory tenant, and supposing the owner of that house discovered that the statutory tenant let the premises furnished for Regatta Week in 1922, could he now, by virtue of that use of the house for a week 4 years ago, come to the court and say: give me possession of the premises, because by virtue of that temporary sub-letting so long ago the premises cease to be protected? I am far from saying because you find that some contention under these Acts leads to an extraordinary result that therefore that cannot be the effect of the Act, because the Acts are so worded that extraordinary results of one kind and another do follow; but I think these considerations assist in leading one to the conclusion, with which I agree, that the fact that a house has been let furnished for a period which had expired before proceedings are commenced cannot be relied upon as taking the house out of the protection of the Act in the way in which is suggested.’

Judges:

Roche J and MacKinnon J

Citations:

[1926] 2 KB 417

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ujima Housing Association v Ansah and Another CA 17-Oct-1997
The tenant had created a sub tenancy, the result of which was that he no longer had any right to enter upon the property unless the sub-tenant surrendered his lease.
Held: The tenant could not be said properly to be in occupation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.220477

Maunsell v Olins: HL 1975

The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: (majority) ‘premises’ in section 18(5) include any premises which, as a matter of fact, applying accepted principles, would be held to be a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Act. The word ‘premises’ was less narrow than ‘dwelling-house’: ‘. . A less narrow view would be to say that ‘premises’ not only dwelling-houses in the normal popular sense, but premises, which, for the purposes of the Rent Act, are treated as dwelling-houses. Everybody knows, and the draftsman must be taken to have known, that protection under the Rent Acts is given not merely to single, identifiable, pure dwelling-houses or dwelling units, but also to units of a mixed character – houses let with a garden or a yard or a garage or a paddock, houses part (even a substantial part) of which is used for business purposes. This is, of course, an untidy situation and it means that no clear definition of a dwelling-house entitled to protection can be given. (We note that a distinction is made between a house let together with land and land let with a house.) But it reflects the reality of life, and the County Courts are used, and skilful, at solving what are inevitably questions of degree. We should recognise this and, as between the narrow and the less narrow meaning, I would apply to premises the latter which would include any premises which, as a matter of fact, applying accepted principles, would be held to be a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Act.’
Lord Simon of Glaisdale invoked the ‘golden rule’ of statutory construction, namely that in technical legislation, a word is normally to be given its appropriately technical meaning (if it is has one), or (if it does not have one) its ordinary meaning. There was no good reason for departing from that rule so that ‘premises’ meant the property comprised in the headlease, whether it was open land, buildings, parts of buildings or a combination.
Lord Reid said that the literal, golden and mischief rules are not ‘rules in the ordinary sense of having some binding force. They are our servants not our masters. They are aids to construction, presumptions or pointers. Not infrequently one ‘rule’ points in one direction, another in a different direction. In each case we must look at all relevant circumstances and decide as a matter of judgment what weight to attach to any particular ‘rule’.’ Viscount Dilhorne: ”Premises’ is an ordinary word of the English language which takes colour and content from the context in which it is used. A reference to Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary shows this to be the case.’
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘From this it has passed into the vernacular, at least a quasi-legal vernacular, as referring to some sort of property, but not without any precise connotation. A reference to Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary shows that a number of different meanings have been acquired of which the most central appears to be buildings or some kinds of buildings, but it would be far too much to say that there is any prima facie, still less any grammatical, meaning from which one should start.’
Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘Consolidation is not nowadays limited to mere re-enactment. Under a procedure recommended by the Law Commissions in 1965 under the Law Commissions Act of that year, even substantial amendments may be made in the pre-existing law, where such are deemed by the Law Commissions to be desirable in order to secure satisfactory consolidation. Such amendments are subject to full and traditional parliamentary control. But, even short of this, by section 2 of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 a consolidation Act may embody such corrections and minor improvements as are confined to, and may be judged expedient with a view to
‘resolving ambiguities, removing doubts, bringing obsolete provisions into conformity with modern practice, or removing unnecessary provisions or anomalies which are not of substantial importance, and amendments designed to facilitate improvement in the form or manner in which the law is stated,’ . .
including ‘any transitional provisions which may be necessary in consequence of such amendments.’ Moreover, the very purpose of consolidation is to enact a compendious code standing on its own and making it unnecessary to scrutinise the consolidated legislation (which is, indeed, repealed in a Schedule to the consolidation Act). For all these reasons it is, in our respectful submission, an incorrect approach to the construction of a consolidation Act (even one limited to re-enactment) to try to interpret it by reference to the repealed statutes which are consolidated. And . .
‘It has been generally accepted in the past that there is a presumption that Parliament does not intend by a consolidation Act to alter the pre-existing law: see Maxwell, pp. 20-25, and Beswick v. Beswick [1968 ] A.C. 58, 73. How far this rule may need modification in the case of some types of consolidation under the Act of 1949 or of consolidation under the 1965 procedure, and how the courts should inform themselves of the manner in which Parliament has proceeded, may have to be considered in some future case. But in any event such a presumption has no scope for operation where the actual words of the consolidation Act are not, as a matter of legal language, capable of bearing more than one meaning. The docked tail must not be allowed to wag the dog. It is only where the actual words used in the consolidation Act are ambiguous (in the sense of being fairly susceptible of bearing more than one meaning in their context and register) that recourse may be had to any difference in phraseology of the corresponding provision in the repealed enactment as an aid to their construction. Even in such a case the corresponding provision of the repealed enactment is capable of being an aid to the construction of the consolidation Act only if its own wording is unambiguous and its sole meaning is one of those which the words in the consolidation Act can fairly bear.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Reid and Viscount Dilhorne, Lords Diplock and Simon of Glaisdale dissenting

Citations:

[1975] AC 373, [1975] 1 All ER 16

Statutes:

Rent Restriction Act 1968 18(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Epsom Grand Stand Association Ltd v Clarke CA 1919
Premises on a racecourse were let to the defendants in part as a public house, and to occupy the other part themselves. The court was asked whether this was a letting of ‘a house or a part of a house let as a separate dwelling . . and every such . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hamad; Ebied and Another v Hopkins and Another; Church Commissioners for England v Baines CA 30-Jul-1997
There was a tenancy for mixed residential and business purposes and, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant sublet one of the residential flats within the premises to the defendant, who enjoyed protection under the Act of 1977.
Held: . .
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 – Pittalis v Grant CA 1989
A point was raised for the first time on appeal.
Held: Though an appellate court could exclude a pure question of law which had not been raised at first instance from being raised on appeal, the usual practice was to allow it to be taken where . .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Cited – Majorstake Ltd v Curtis CA 8-Aug-2006
The tenant had given notice under section 42 requiring a new lease. The landlord said it wished to redevelop the apartment by combining it with a neighbouring one. The issue was as to what constituted ‘any premises in which [Flat 77] is contained’ . .
Cited – National Trust for Places of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty v Knipe and Knipe CA 15-May-1997
The tenancy was of an agricultural holding, with protection under the 1986 Act. It had 350 acres of pasture, and two farmhouses. The tenants covenanted not to use the holding for any purpose other than agriculture, to farm it in accordance with the . .
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 – Majorstake Ltd v Curtis HL 6-Feb-2008
The tenant had served a notice under the 2003 Act to acquire a new lease. The landlord in replying that he wished to redevelop the site, sought himself to define the extent of the ‘estate’ to include only the tenant’s apartment and a neighbouring . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.200613

Cannan v Hartley: 1850

Citations:

(1850) 9 CB 634, [1850] EngR 9, (1850) 137 ER 1040

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – John Laing Construction Ltd v Amber Pass Ltd ChD 7-Apr-2004
The landlord resisted the exercise of a break clause saying that the entire premises had not been vacated. The difference was as to whether mere vacation was enough, or whether the tenant had to do some further positive act. The tenant had left . .
Cited – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.200445

Johnson v Moreton: HL 1980

The tenant had, in the tenancy agreement itself, purported to contract ‘not in any event to serve a counter-notice under Section 24(1)’ of the 1948 Act.
Held: A head tenant under an agricultural tenancy has the right to challenge any notice to quit by serving a counter-notice, and any agreement purporting to exclude or curtail that right is unenforceable. The estoppel relied on was an estoppel by convention alleged to arise as a result of the common intention of the parties as at the date of the agreement. The question is whether the right conferred is exclusively personal (in which case waiver will be permitted) or is designed to serve other, broader public purposes and so, compendiously, whether to permit a waiver would undermine or frustrate the purposes of the statute.
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone said: ‘This Act is a consolidating Act to which the observations of a majority of your Lordships in Farrell v. Alexander [1977] AC 59, 72 (Lord Wilberforce), 82 (Lord Simon of Glaisdale) and 97 (Lord Edmund-Davies) clearly apply. Even if I were not bound by these observations I would respectfully agree with them. In my view the whole purpose of consolidation would be defeated if they were not observed and rigidly adhered to or if endeavours were made to split the various components of the consolidation Act apart and construe them by reference to their individual histories. If, in the course of these remarks, I refer to the history of the legislation before and after 1948 it is not in order to construe the words of the Act, which, as will be seen, are in my view unambiguous as they stand, but simply to place them in their proper historical and social context as at 1948.’
Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘The 1948 statute was a consolidation Act. Any provision in it must therefore be construed in the context of the whole of the statute in which it now stands (Farrell v. Alexander [1977] AC 59); though it is legitimate (indeed, incumbent) to investigate the statutory history in so far as that throws light on the objective of a particular provision (at p. 84); the ascertainment of the parliamentary objective is an important – generally, an essential – part of the process of statutory interpretation.’

Judges:

Lord Salmon, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone

Citations:

[1980] AC 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott ChD 23-Nov-2001
The tenant had claimed a tenancy under the Act. The landlord sought to assert a proprietary estoppel against them. There was nothing in the 1986 Act to stop the claimants relying on a proprietary estoppel and asserting their claims to occupation. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited HL 7-Dec-2000
The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.183145

Regina (Lester) v London Rent Assessment Committee: QBD 7 Nov 2002

The tenant sought to request the Committee to fix his rent. He sent the application, but it was not received before it came into effect. He appealed a rejection of his claim as out of time.
Held: The regulation required the rent to be referred to the committee before the new rent came into effect. That required the notice to be received in time. A reference to the committee could not be construed to include the sending of the notice.

Judges:

Sir Richard Tucker

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Lester v The London Rent Assessment Committee CA 12-Mar-2003
The court faced the question of, whether if a landlord serves a notice on an assured tenant under section 13(2) of the Act proposing an increase in rent, that will be the rent unless, before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.178297

Rajah v Arogol Co Ltd: CA 13 Apr 2001

A tenant held a protected tenancy of one room in a house, but later extended his occupation to the entire floor.
Held: He did not thereby lose his status as protected tenant, and it did not operate as a surrender of the existing tenancy. The section protected the continuing tenancy because it referred to a grant of the tenancy by a person who was then a landlord.

Citations:

Gazette 24-May-2001, Times 13-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 454

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85657

Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley and Another: CA 24 Apr 2001

One of two joint tenants was able to give a notice to quit a joint periodic tenancy, without first referring to the co-tenant. If this was inappropriate, then it was for Parliament to change the law. Such a notice was not the exercise of a ‘function’ relating to the land within the Act, and accordingly there was no need to consult on the notice with the co-tenant. The notice simply served to indicate an unwillingness to withhold consent to the continuance of the tenancy, to allow a liability to continue to accrue. The words of the new Act were strikingly similar to the Act it replaced, and the concept of ‘function’ was not extended.

Citations:

Times 15-Jun-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 601, [2001] L and TR 34, (2001) 82 P and CR DG26, [2001] 35 EG 106, [2001] 18 EGCS 175, [2001] 3 EGLR 11, [2002] HLR 10, [2001] WTLR 1353

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen and Another HL 29-Jul-1998
A tenancy which had been terminated by a notice given by one of the joint tenants had expired. It did not come to an end by any deed, and so was not capable of being set aside by a family court in the course of divorce proceedings. The possession . .

Cited by:

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, Trusts, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84370

In Re Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Ltd v Bairstow and Another: HL 4 Feb 1999

The tenant company went into liquidation, the receiver disclaimed the lease, and the landlord claimed compensation under the Act. The question concerned how the compensation was to be calculated.
Held: Where a solvent tenant under an onerous lease goes into voluntary liquidation, and the liquidator disclaims the lease, the right to payment of rent disappears, and the landlord is entitled to compensation only, by payment discounted for acceleration.
The court had to calculate the compensation according to general principles. It was a statutory right where any common law or contractual rights were extinguished by the disclaimer. The right replaced any rights which would have arisen under the lease. The receiver said that the damages should be reduced to allow for the fact of the acceleration of the receipts. He was correct. The Court of Appeal had been wrong to treat the freeholder as a secured creditor making a voluntary proof. His claim was for the statutory right of compensation, not any made under the lease itself. The common law right to damages was lost on the disclaimer. Appeal allowed, but with a discount of 5.5% to the accelerated rent.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-1999, [1999] UKHL 2, [2000] 2 AC 172, [1999] 1 All ER 673, [1999] 2 WLR 396, [2000] ANZ Conv R 174, [1999] 1 EGLR 1, [1999] 1 BCLC 155

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 178(6), Insolvency Act 1986 178, Insolvency Rules 1986 4.88(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others HL 22-Feb-1996
The guarantor of an original tenant under the lease remains liable after the disclaimer the lease on insolvency. The disclaimer operates to determine the lease altogether with the result that the landlord’s reversion is accelerated. ‘In order to . .
Appeal from – Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Limited v Bairstow and Ruddock CA 1-May-1997
If a lease is determined or treated as determined in a winding up or in a bankruptcy, the landlord is entitled to prove in principle for all the rent and other payments which he would have been entitled to recover from the tenant for the residue of . .
Cited – Ex parte Llynvi Coal and Iron Co; In re Hide 1871
The trustee in bankruptcy disclaimed an agreement for a lease under Section 23. The landlord claimed to prove as creditor under the section.
Held: Where one party has repudiated a contract and the other party has accepted that repudiation as . .
Cited – Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses
The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an . .
Cited – Overstone Ltd v Shipway 1962
Where a claimed loss will be suffered over a period in the future, the computation will have to make allowance for any advancement that has occurred. . .
Cited – In re London and Colonial Co.; Horsey’s claim 1868
. .
Cited – In re New Oriental Bank Corporation (No.2) 1895
Where a tenancy continues after the insolvency of the tenant, the landlord is entitled (i) to prove for all the arrears of rent; (ii) to enter a claim for all future rent; and (iii) as rent accrues due, to submit proofs in the liquidation from time . .
Cited – Hardy v Fothergill 1888
Rent falling due after a winding up of the tenant was a future debt for which the landlord could have proved in the tenant’s liquidation. . .
Cited – In re Metropolis Estates Co Ltd CA 1940
. .
Cited – Oppenheimer v British and Foreign Exchange and Investment Bank 1877
A court can give a liquidator leave to distribute, thus protecting him from any risk of personal liability, but only if he retained a sum sufficient when invested at compound interest to fund future liabilities. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages, Insolvency

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82112

Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan: CA 31 Jan 1996

The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought issue of a warrant, and the tenant argued that a new possession was required, saying that the further agreement constituted the grant of a new tenancy or licence, and that this happened irrespective of anybody’s intentions.
Held: No new tenancy had been created, and no new possession order was required. It would be wrong to require the authority to apply to court each time a tenant under a suspended order was late in payment. The tenancy was determined when the conditions were breached. The authority might waive that breach, in which case situation continued as before. Whether the variation created a new tenancy was a question of fact. In this case the tenancy ended twice. The waivers by the authority did not determine the tenancy. Had he applied, the tenant would have been granted a postponment of the possession on the new agreement.
‘The tenancy continues until the date on which the tenant is ordered to give up possession. If the order is suspended on terms, the tenancy continues until there is a breach of those terms and then determines. The Local Authority is free to treat the tenant as a trespasser and to request the court to issue a warrant of execution. The tenant, on the other hand, is entitled to apply to the court to vary the terms of the order by postponing the date of possession. If it does so, the tenancy is reinstated and treated as if it had not determined.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1996, (1996) 28 HLR 469, (1996) 72 P and CR 507

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
Cited – Referral By the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission In the Cases of William Gray James Bernard O’Rourke v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 23-Dec-2004
. .
Cited – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1995
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Swindon Borough Council v Aston CA 19-Dec-2002
The tenant had fallen into arrears, and a possession order had been made. Having cleared the arrears, the possession order fell, but the landlord purported to issue a new tenancy agreement, with no security of tenure. They now sought possession . .
Cited – Marshall v Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 27-Apr-2001
There were three issues; (1) whether it was proper for the judge to have struck out disrepair proceedings when it could be seen that an application to discharge or rescind a suspended possession order would be likely to succeed (2) whether the . .
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 . .
Applied – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council HL 31-Oct-1996
The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority . .
Cited – Richmond v Kensington and Chelsea CA 15-Feb-2006
The borough obtained a possession order of the secure tenancy of a flat occupied by their tenant for nuisance. It was suspended on terms for a certain period. They alleged further breaches shortly before the expiry of the possession order and they . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Cited – Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant’s brother had been the secure tenant of the respondent Council which had in 1987 obtained an order for possession for rent arrears suspended on condition. The condition had not been complied with, but the brother had continued to live . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81015

Lionel Goldstein v Ron Conley (2): CA 21 Jun 2001

A case went from the leasehold valuation tribunal, where there was no jurisdiction to award costs, to the Lands Appeal Tribunal where the Tribunal awarded costs against the applicant, and again to the High Court where the landlord sought to enforce the costs award. The tenant argued that the LAT had no power to award costs on an appeal from the LVT. It was held that the proceedings at the LAT were separate proceedings for which a full power to award costs existed, and that the High Court had full power to enforce the costs order, through its inherent powers, just as it had power to enforce a judgment of a foreign court.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 637

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80903

Dream Factory Ltd and Another v Crown Estate Commissioners: ChD 22 Oct 1998

An agreement for lease containing provision that it could not be revoked in circumstances where a full tenant would have the right to appeal against forfeiture, was enforceable in the terms stated though unhappily phrased. The notice was insufficient to determine the lease.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1998

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80131

Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club Ltd v Pope: CA 6 Apr 2000

The tenant sought to assert that he occupied a houseboat, the Dinty Moore, under a tenancy of a dwellinghouse under the 1988 Act. The claimant appealed a decision that it was.
Held: A house-boat, even though used as a dwelling, did not have the character of a house sufficiently to allow an assured tenancy of it to arise. This could only happen if the boat itself became affixed to the land so as to become part of it. In this case the boat would float for several hours each day as the tide rose, and the boat could quite easily be moved to a different mooring. It was a chattel and was not inherently capable of becoming real property.

Judges:

Morritt LJ, Waller LJ, Tucker LJ

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-2000, [2000] 22 EG 147, [2000] 1 WLR 1941, [2000] EWCA Civ 425

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Holland v Hodgson 1872
(Court of Exchequer Chamber) Blackburn J set out what constituted a fixture: ‘There is no doubt that the general maxim of the law is, that what is annexed to the land becomes part of the land; but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say with . .
Cited – Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997
The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
Held: The tenants’ . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Woodbury (Valuation Officer) and the Yard Arm Club Ltd CA 1-Nov-1992
A vessel, the Hispaniola was firmly fixed to moorings. The Council appealed a finding that it was exempt from inclusion in the rating list by the Act.
Held: The court found difficulty in the idea of lateral occupation by a chattel, or that . .
Cited – Cory v Bristow HL 1877
The owner of a vessel used for commercial purposes while fixed in position on a long-term basis over moorings on the riverbed could for rating purposes be treated as the occupier of those moorings and the part of the riverbed in which they were . .
Cited – Forrest v Overseers of Greenwich 1858
The court was asked whether a landing stage by a river was part of the land. F. moored a barge in the Thames between high and low water mark : the moorings wera stationary, in the bed of the river; and the barge floated at high water and grounded at . .
Cited – Stubbs v Hartnell CA 9-Jun-1997
The Court was asked whether a houseboat on the River Thames was subject to council tax. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79005

Brown and Root Technology Ltd and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Comp Ltd: CA 19 Dec 1996

The claimant had a personal right to exercise a break clause in a lease of which it was the registered proprietor, that right coming to an end when it assigned the lease. The lease was assigned to another company within the group which took over payment of the rent: but BandR was never registered as proprietor. Technology exercised the break clause. The question was whether it had lost the right to do so because it had ‘assigned’ the lease.
Held: The lease was not to be treated as having been assigned. An assignment of a registered lease was invalid until registered at HMLR even though it has been accepted by the Landlord.
Mummery LJ said: ‘This case is not a matter of beneficial ownership between parties to the transfer of the lease: the issue of assignment or no assignment affects the legal position of a third party, the lessors, who have given their licence to assign but are not a party to the transfer . . Transfer of the beneficial title is not, in this context, relevant to the legal relationship between the lessees and the lessors. The issue is not what rights Technology and B and R have against each other, but what rights Technology and [the lessors] have against each other. That is a question of legal, not equitable, rights.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss, Mummery LJJ, Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

Gazette 19-Feb-1997, Times 27-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1261, (1996) 75 P and C R 223, [2001] Ch 733

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Brown and Root v Sun Alliance CA 2001
Until there has been a transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act the legal title to the estate remains with the vendor . .
Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD 23-Jan-2009
The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
Applied – Renshaw v Magnet Properties South East LLP 2008
(Central London County Court) . .
Applied – Lankester and Son Ltd v Rennie and Another CA 2-Dec-2014
The transfer of a lease remained unregistered.
Held: The court acknowledged the importance of not confusing the equitable rights as between transferor and transferee with the legal rights as between landlord and tenant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78692

Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Bromley London Borough Council: ChD 9 Jan 2001

Applicants sought the right to fly from the airport. Local residents sought to intervene on the basis that if the lease controlling such rights was construed in such a way as to allow such an extension, this would interfere with their human rights. The lease had to be construed against the factual background as at the time it was entered into, and the Act could not affect that interpretation, and there was no basis for implying any such term into the lease. The local authority was not acting unlawfully in granting a declaration in the terms it proposed.

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-2001, Times 09-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78394

BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and Another: ChD 27 Feb 2001

An office buidling had a toughened glass cladding. When a cladding plate slipped and fell, the local authority issed a dangerous structures notice. The landlord served a notice to use the Act to divest himself of responsibility for repairs.
Held: For a lease covenant to be subject to the Act, whether for the landlord or tenant, with the effect that that party was released on an assignment by a successor, the covenant had to be transmissible and not personal. Only covenants therefore enforceable against the current tenant or current landlord were covered and if it was one ‘falling to be complied with by the landlord’, such person being ‘the person for the time being entitled to the reversion expectant on the term of the tenancy’. Though the covenant was contained in a separate document, it remained for these purposes a covenant within the Act, and capable of being subject to its provisions. Here the landlord was not released.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 30-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 277, [2001] EGCS 31, [2001] 2 All ER 914, [2002] Ch 12

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 8 28

Citing:

Appealed to – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another CA 30-Nov-2001
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another CA 30-Nov-2001
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects . .
Cited – First Penthouse Limited/Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited/Fahad Al Tamimi First Penthouse Limited Varlet International Limited Ruth Gary Orbach Quallvile Limited Norval Holdings Limited ChD 14-Nov-2003
Several transactions had taken place with regard to a lease of a roof void, which was to be developed for penthouses. The lease had been charged to secure funding. The development did not proceed to schedule, and a s146 notice was served. It was . .
Cited – London Diocesan Fund and others v Avonridge Property Company Ltd and Phithwa HL 1-Dec-2005
The defendant had taken on a lease of a parade of shops, and sub-let each shop for a full premium at a nominal rent. It sought to limit its own liability to pay the head rent by limiting the covenant in the sub-leases to pay the head rent to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78384

Bater v Greenwich London Borough Council: CA 28 Sep 1999

The couple being joint tenants of the matrimonial home had applied for its purchase form the Council. Divorce proceedings commenced and she purported to terminate the joint tenancy. He applied to set aside the notice, and the Local Authority intervened. Neither the right to buy, nor the notice to terminate were dispositions of property, and the Court had no capacity to set them aside.
Held: ‘It is now established beyond a peradventure that a right to buy is dependant on the existence of a secure tenancy to which it is incidental.’

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1920, [1999] 2 FLR 993

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78285

Capital and City Holdings Ltd v Dean Warburg Ltd: CA 1988

There was no right of reimbursement under the 1870 Act of rent paid in advance even where the reddendum also included the words ‘proportionately for any part of a year’.

Citations:

(1988) 58 P and CR 346, [1989] 1 EGLR 90

Statutes:

Apportionment Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616754

Re a Company: 2007

There was no difference between forfeiture and termination under the break clause for the purpose of considering apportionment or otherwise of rent paid in advance.

Citations:

[2007] BPIR

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616755

Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Pasta Place Ltd: ChD 1995

The demised premises were originally used by the tenant as a delicatessen. The landlord granted the tenant successive licences permitting the installation of eight tables for the consumption of food and non-alcoholic beverages, permitting the service of Italian wine for consumption with food and permitting the off-licence sale of beers, ciders and wine as well as the use of adjoining premises as a fire escape.
Held: Morland J rejected the argument that the grant of the licences amounted to forbearance by the lessor: ‘The next question is can the plaintiff rely upon the proviso to override the general law? In my judgment, on a proper construction of the proviso, they clearly cannot. The proviso . . does envisage a landlord having a wide discretion in dealing with a tenant, but, in my judgment, it is a wide discretion in dealing with a tenant who has broken his obligations under the lease. . The proviso, in my judgment, has to be construed in a way to give purpose to the object of the proviso which is . . to give a wide discretion to the lessor or landlord. On the other hand, the words of the proviso are clear, that they are designed for the situation where there is either a breach or an apprehended breach of covenant failure to pay the rent . . This case differs factually from the Selous case . . where there had been a breach of covenant in the erection of toilets. . . In the present case, the three licences were granted before the date the rent review was agreed. There was no question here of any breach of covenant, or the giving of time to remedy the breach.’

Judges:

Morland J

Citations:

[1995] 1 EGLR 79

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

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.523151

Case XXXVIII Mich 13 Jac B R Furrer v Snelling, Dyer, 55: 1220

Covenant for payment of rent of andpound;20 per annum, for four years and a half; and for non-payment of andpound;100 according to the said covenant, the action is brought: adjudged good, and affirmed in error: for in covenant damages only are to be recovered and this surplus in miscomputing shall be abated : it is otherwise in debt for rent, where more is demanded than is due; for in this case the debt demanded only, is to be recovered.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 761, (1220-1623) Jenk 324, (1220) 145 ER 235 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461673

2 Jac Cr 40, Earl of Rutland’s Case 1 Co 76 A B Curia Wardor’, Surrender, Tail, Fines, Discontinuance, Bar Baldwin’s Case: 1220

A tenant for life, remainder to B. in tail ; B. levies a fine, with proclamations, sur concessit, to A. and C. for their lives : this fine bars the intail during the said two lives only, and is not a discontinuance omnio : for B. was riot seised by force of the tail, and the fine is sur concessit : it seems that A.’s acceptance of this estate to him and C. is a surrender of the former estate which he had : as in the case of a lease for years made to A. and during the years, he accepts a lease for years of the same land to him and B.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 274, (1220-1623) Jenk 321, (1220) 145 ER 233 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461186

Case LXXVII 43 El 2 Co 91 B, Bingham’s Case 13 Co 56 Uses, Leases, Done, Remainder: 1220

A. seised of land in fee, levies a fine of it to B. to the use of C. in tail, remainder to the right heirs of A. A. iri the life of C. makes a lease of this lad for 100 years ; C. dies without issue : this is a good lease against A. for this remainder is it reversion in A. for the use of the fee was not out of him, when the use to C. in tail was limited ; but remained in him, viz. in A. and is a reversion in A. and his heir in this case is not a purchaser, but shall have it by discent.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 538, (1220-1623) Jenk 266, (1220) 145 ER 191 (F)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461450

4 Jac Cr 117, Offley’s Case: 1220

A makes a lease of certain land for 21 years the 31 January, 26 Eliz. to begin from the feast of Christmas last passed, rendering certain rent at Christmas yearly, during the term, which lease ends at Christmas 2 Jac. 1. A by common recovery conveys the reversion to B before Christmas, 2 Jac. 1. B. brings debt for this rent, and does not shew in what action the recovery was had, and says that on the first of February, the 2 Jac he had the reversion ; which is not possible; for the lease had ended before, viz. at Christmas, the 2 Jac and the recovery is insufficiently pleaded : yet B in debt for this rent had judgment, affirmed in error. For B had the reversion wheri the rent was due at Christmas, and the said allegation of the reversion being in him on the first of Feb the 2d of James was surplusage : and although the recovery was erroneous, a stranger shall not take advantage of it. Res inter alios acta nemini nocet.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 509, (1220-1623) Jenk 322, (1220) 145 ER 234 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461421

3 Co 78 A 41 Ass Pl 28: 1220

A. has right to recover in a formedon against B. tenant of the land, A. by covin with C. causes C. to disseise B. to the intent that C. should make default in a formedon against him, and that A, should recover by default ; A. recovers the land against C. accordingly by this covin, by default or confession ; A. enters, he is not remitted ; B. enters, and A. ousts him. Resolved by all the sages in parliament, that this covin makes A. a disseisor of his own land. Farmer’s case, 3 Co. 77. Coke has many cases to this effect.
Fraus and dolus nemini petrocinentur.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 378, (1220-1623) Jenk 46, (1220) 145 ER 35 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461290

Case LXV 44 Eliz Raym 149, 219 1 Vent 241, 2 2 Lev 52, 53 3 Co 77, Fermor’s Case Fines, Covin, Averment, Bar 2 Ander 176 1 Jones, 35, 211, 317 Winch, 116 Savil, 85, 88, 106, 107, 1 Leon 40: 1220

A. makes a lease for years of land in Dale to B rendering yearly rent; B has other lands of inheritance in Dale ; E leases to C. for life the said 1ands leased to him for years ; and afterwards B levies a fine with proclamations of all the said lands, which were his inheritance and of those which were leased to him for years ; (the number of acres in the fine amounted to the whole) B paid his rent yearly to A during the years ; the said fine was levied of all the said lands, with proc1amations ; and five years passed : A shall not be barred in this case ; for there is apparent covin in levying this fine.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 547, (1220-1623) Jenk 253, (1220) 145 ER 180 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461459

Case XIX. 26 H 8, 23 By The Judges of Both Benches 14 H 8, 3 Stat De Glocester, Cap 11 Resceit, Averment Hob 35: 1220

A quare impedit is brought against the patron and incumbent to present to a rectory, of which the incumbent has made a lease for years to B. by deed ; in this case the patron of the incumbent confesses the action: the lessee for years is not relievable ; although he comes before judgment and shews his lease, and shews the title of his lessor, and the fraud and collusion : for a parson incumbent may, when he will, resign his rectory, and avoid his lease; and the absence of a parson for the space of 80 days in a year shall avoid the said lease ; also if he will suffer a judgment and recovery of it against him, such recovery shall avoid the said lease. The statute of Glocester is to be understood of leases made by such lessors as could not defeat sruch leases by their own acts.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 356, (1220-1623) Jenk 200, (1220) 145 ER 135 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Ecclesiastical, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461268

10 Jac 9 Co 60, Bradshaw’s Case: 1220

A. makes a lease by indenture to B. for 31 years if C. so long lives ; C. is dead at the time ; this lease is absolute. A. covenants by this indenture with B. that he A, has full power to demise this land to B. as aforesaid ; in covenant brought by B, against A. UPON this, he need not shew how A had not full power : it is sufficient for him to declare generally that A. had not full power: for what power he had lies in the knowlegde of the covenant and not in the knowledge of the covenantee.
A. makes a lease to B. if C. lives for 31 years, and C. is dead at the time; this lease is void : for the condition is precedent. A lease for 31 years is made to A. to begin after a lease for 21 years made to C. shall determine ; whereas in truth no lease was made to C. this lease to A. shall begin immediately. The law requires truth and convenient certainty in counts and pleadings : this certainty ought to be shewn by him, who, in intendment of law, has the most certain knowledge of it.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 59, (1220-1623) Jenk 305, (1220) 145 ER 222 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460971

Re Boyer’s Settled Estates: 1916

A right to reside shared by two persons was recognized as a valid and effective right. Sargant J said: ‘I think that the effect of s58 is, broadly speaking, to give to the large class of persons comprised in the nine headings of subs(1) of s58 the powers of a tenant for life, although they are not strictly tenants for life by reason of their estates not being strictly estates for life. But, apart from that, I think that the persons who are dealt with under s58 are persons who fall within the general defining provisions of s2(5), under which in determining tenancy you have to regard beneficial title to possession’.

Judges:

Sargant J

Citations:

[1916] 2 Ch 404

Statutes:

Settled Land Act 1882 2(5) 58

Cited by:

Cited – Binions v Evans CA 27-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.450173

Brown v Draper: CA 1944

The husband tenant had left the matrimonial home after a quarrel leaving behind some of his furniture.
Held: The husband/tenant cannot put an end to the tenancy, even by such acts as delivering the keys to the landlord, so long as his wife remains on the premises: he remains there by her, and so long as he does so, whatever else he does or says, the tenancy remains. The only ways in which a tenant may lose the protection of the Rent Acts are (a) by giving up possession (in which case no order for recovery of possession against him was required) or (b) by having an order of possession made against him. In the case of a licensee of a tenant, the licensee cannot in her own right claim the protection of the Acts, and ‘That proposition is equally true of our Rent Restriction Act and what is stated about a licensee is applicable equally to a sub-tenant. But a sub-tenant car shelter behind the protection afforded to the tenant (his immediate landlord) is that protection has not ceased to exist.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1944] KB 309

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

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.450174

John Aldridge, Robert And Nicholas Aldridge, And Mary Keat Widow v Edward Duke, George Duke, Nicholas Aldridge, John Dean, And Avisia Duke: 1679

A subsequent Lease made to on by way of Mortgage, who had Notice of a prior Lease made for raising Children’s Portion, was set aside

Citations:

[1679] EngR 30, (1679) Fin H 439, (1679) 23 ER 239 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.402674

Quaintrell v Wright: 17 Nov 1729

Plaintiff brought his bill as lessee of the bishop of Norwich of the rectory of Ingham in the county of Norfolk, and produced his lease dated May 8, 1723 : the defendant set forth, that the bishop of Norwich, at Michaelmas in the year 1693, demised the Grainge farm, with all tithes thereto belonging, or therewith usually letten ; that this lease was surrendered July 7, 1714, and a new lease made the next day by the bishop of Norwich to the person under whom the defendants claim, with the same words ; so insist, that at the time of the grant of the rectory the tithes could not pass to the plaintiff (of this farm) they being before expresly granted by the lease in 1693, and which was subsisting at the time of the plaintiff’s lease.
But nota, there was proof that the lessees of the rectory had usually received the tithes of the whole parish, farm and all ; and no proof of the defendant’s side of the lessees’ of the farm ever receiving tithes. Therefore per curiam (Lord Chief Baron Pengelly arid Baron Carter only in court) the defendant was decreed to account, for usage shall explain this matter ; and these tithes cannot be said either to belong to Grainge farm, or to be usually letten with it ; and the word tithes was taken in only as a word of course, and from the old lease : it there had been a dispute between the bishop himself and the lessee of Grainge farm, it might have had another consideration.

Citations:

[1729] EngR 366, (1729) Bunb 274, (1729) 145 ER 672 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.388314

Simpson v Eggington: 9 Feb 1855

It is a good answer to a plea of set-off, that the amount has heen paid by a person professing to act as agent for and on account of the plaintiff, though without his authority, and that the latter ratified the act at the time of the trial. The treasurer of a corporation paid their clerk (the defendant) the amount of his year’s salary, both parties believing at the time that the treasurer had the authority of the corporation to make such payment, but the treasurer had no such authority, and the corporation afterwards repudiated the payment and dismissed the defendant from their service. In an action against the deferidatit for the recovery of certain monies paid to him on account of the corporation — Held, that the corporation was entitled, at the trial, to ratify the act of their treasurer, and, consequently, that the defendant could not set off the amount of his salary as due to him from the corporation.
The court found no evidence that as between himself and the landlord, or between himself and the plaintiff, the defendant had acted or purported to act or regarded himself as acting as agent for the plaintiff when making payments of what the tenant claimed had been his rent.
Held: Parke B said: ‘The general rule as to payment or satisfaction by a third person, not himself liable as a co-contractor . . appears to be, that it is not sufficient to discharge a debtor unless it is made by the third person, as agent, for and on account of the debtor and with his prior authority or subsequent ratification.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

(1855) 10 Exch 845, [1855] EngR 220, (1855) 10 Exch 845, (1855) 156 ER 683

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Applied – Smith v Cox 1942
The tenant, Mr Smith, refused to pay rent to the elderly landlady, Ms Rolf, because she had not repaired the property. The defendant agent paid the rent from his own pocket, expecting to recover it when the rent was eventually paid. When he failed . .
Cited – Treasure and Son Ltd v Dawes TCC 15-Sep-2008
The defendant had been ordered to pay substantial fees to the claimant by the adjudicator. The defendant claimed that payment had been made on his behalf. . .
Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD 24-Jan-2014
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant, Company, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276500

Morelle Ltd v Waterworth: CA 1955

The court was asked (1) Was the assurance to the Plaintiff Company of the unexpired residue of a term of years in house property in London an assurance of land in mortmain within the terms of section 1 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888? (2) If so, was the term so assured automatically forfeited to the Crown by virtue of the same subsection?
Held: Both questions were answered affirmatively.

Citations:

[1955] 1 QB 1

Statutes:

Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888

Cited by:

Per incuriam – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Charity

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.272569

Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council: ChD 1 Apr 1999

It might be correct for a landlord to refuse consent to assignment where its objection to the proposed user was that it was generally undesirable, and there need be shown no necessary implication that the use would not be allowed by the lease.

Citations:

Times 01-Apr-1999

Citing:

See Also – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 20-Jan-1997
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 3-Feb-2000
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after . .
At First Instance – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77902

Ali Bhai and Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2000

The tenant appealed against a refusal of what he said was his right to buy the flat he occupied. The Housing Association respondent and arbitrator had said that the tenancy had been assured, not secure and that therefore no right to buy had existed. After the grant of the tenancy, the Association had changed in status from being fully mutual.
Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. A tenancy from a mutual housing association created in 1985 was neither protected nor secure, and the Housing Act 1985 did not alter that status. However the later Act did operate, when the association converted from its mutual status, to change the tenancy to a secure tenancy, and that in turn gave the tenant a right to buy. The conversion led to the ‘landlord condition’ becoming fulfilled.
Jonathan Parker LJ said: ‘paragraph 4(a) in my judgment provides a saving for existing tenancies in respect of which, immediately prior to the commencement date, the ‘landlord condition’ was satisfied (so that they were secure tenancies), but in respect of which the ‘landlord condition’ would otherwise have ceased to be satisfied as from the commencement date, by virtue of the repeals: e.g. a tenancy where the landlord immediately before the commencement date was a non-mutual association. The saving is achieved not by providing that such tenancies shall continue as secure tenancies until such time as the non-mutual association disposes of its interest to an authority or body which is not included in the amended list, for that would be inconsistent with the ‘ambulatory’ nature of the statutory code. Rather, the saving is achieved by preserving the unamended ‘landlord condition’ in relation to such a tenancy, so that it will be a secure tenancy at any time in the future when the interest of the landlord belongs to an authority or body within the unamended section 80 (e.g. a non-mutual association).’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000, Gazette 23-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 276, [2001] 2 All ER 865

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, Local Government and Housing Act 1989, Housing Act 1988 sch18 p4(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Paice CA 3-Apr-1995
A dwelling subtenant of part of premises comprised in a business lease became a secure tenant on the surrender of the mesne tenancy. Section 79 of the 1985 Act had ambulatory effect.
Waite LJ said: ‘The use of the term ‘at any time’ in section . .

Cited by:

Cited – Southward Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Walker and Another ChD 8-Jun-2015
The court was asked as to the nature and effect of tenancies for life granted by fully mutual housing co-operatives and in particular how they can lawfully be brought to an end and a possession order obtained. The tenants sought a declaration of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77729

Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc v Homebase Ltd: ChD 26 Apr 2001

The defendant took a lease of substantial property, subject to a covenant not to sublet without the landlord’s consent, such consent not to be withheld unreasonably, and which covenant was made subject to additional conditions. The defendants ceased to operate and sought to sublet. They eventually found a possible sub-tenant, and sought the landlord’s licence. The court held that each of the additional provisos must be complied with before the reasonableness of the proposed sub-letting was to be assessed, and it was for the tenant to demonstrate that compliance. Promises made by the tenant to the proposed sub-tenant did not invalidate the fulfillment of the conditions by the sub-tenant, particularly in the light of the difficulties in finding a new tenant. However the arrangements did not achieve the requirement to align the terms of the rent reviews in the sub-tenancy with those in the head tenancy.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77756

Edge v Strafford: CExc 1831

The case of Ryley v Hicks was not overruled by Inman v Stamp. Rylet stood as good authority that ‘a lease, though it were to commence in futuro, would be within the exception in the statute of frauds, if it did not exceed three years from the making.’

Judges:

Bayley B

Citations:

(1831) 1 Cr and J 391

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Ryley v Hicks 1725
A lease by parol for less than three years from the making of it and stated to take effect at a future day are not within the Statute of Frauds: ‘In Middlesex, coram Raymond, Chief Justice.
Leases by parol for less than three years from the . .
Cited – Inman v Stamp 1815
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ChD 20-Mar-1996
The parties had agreed for a lease, and the tenant entered possession, but no formal lease was executed. The tenant stopped paying rent in 1977 or 1984. He now claimed rectification of the registers to show him as proprietor. The landlord argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.263778

Plough Investments Ltd v Manchester City Council: 1989

Citations:

[1989] EGLR 244

Cited by:

Cited – Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and Others ChD 4-Apr-2007
Land at Wembley stadium had been sold to the defendants and leased back. The defendant assigned the freehold within the group, declaring that the lease was held in trust for the original freeholder. The claimant now said that the defendant assignee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.263796

Hadjiloucas v Crean: CA 1988

Two ladies applied to take two-roomed flat with kitchen and bathroom. Each signed an agreement to pay pounds 260 per month to share the use of the flat with one other person. They moved into the flat and enjoyed exclusive occupation. In terms, if the agreement of one lady was terminated, the owner could require the other to share the flat with a stranger. The county court judge decided that the agreements only created licences.
Held: A retrial was ordered to investigate the facts further. However, the two ladies applied for and enjoyed exclusive occupation unless and until one of their agreements was terminated, and they had acquired a tenancy protected by the Rent Acts. The reservation to the owner of the right at common law to require one of the ladies to share the flat with a stranger was a pretence.

Judges:

Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 1006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259694

Ahearn v Bellman; Sedgewick v Ahearn: 1879

The defendant held a tenancy of a shop from year to year. The landlord gave him a notice giving a valid date for termination, but continued with a term providing a different rent if the tenant stayed in possession.
Held: The later words did not invalidate the earlier effective notice. A notice to quit which is optional is not a notice to quit.

Judges:

Bramwell LJ

Citations:

(1879) 4 Ex D 201

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.245890

Brew Brothers Limited v Snax (Ross) Ltd: CA 1970

The court considered the extent to which the nature of a building affected the duty to repair under a lease.
Sachs LJ said: ‘It seems to me that the correct approach is to look at the particular building, to look at the state which it is in at the date of the lease, to look at the precise terms of the lease, and then come to a conclusion as to whether, on a fair interpretation of those terms in relation that that state, the requisite work can fairly be termed repair. However large the covenant it must not be looked at in vacuo.’

Judges:

Sachs LJ

Citations:

[1970] QB 612

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Elmcroft Developments Ltd v Tankersley-Sawyer CA 1984
The premises were a part of a late Victorian purpose-built mansion block consisting of 27 flats, including seven basement flats. They formed part of a larger terrace of buildings of a similar character and provided high-class accommodation in a . .
Cited – Eyre and others v McCracken CA 10-Mar-2000
The court considered the tenant’s covenant to repair in the context of a need for a damp course: ‘I have regard to the age, (over 150 years) and the design of the building. It has no damp-proof course . . I bear in mind the limited interest of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.235459

Accountancy Personnel Ltd v Salters’ Company: CA 1972

The landlord opposed the grant of a new tenancy on redevelopment grounds. The judge found that the landlord had not established the requisite intention at the hearing date, but held that the intention would be established six months later. He made a declaration to that effect under section 31 (2) of the Act, which had the effect of terminating the tenant’s tenancy on that date. The tenant appealed. By the date of the hearing the landlord’s plans had been delayed.
Held: The Court of Appeal could take into account the evidence of delay and extended the termination date by a further three months

Citations:

[1972] EGD 461

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f) 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dogan v Semali Investments Ltd CA 4-Aug-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229223

Cadogan v McCarthy and Stone Developments Ltd: 1996

Citations:

[1996] EGCS 94

Cited by:

Cited – Gatwick Parking Service Ltd v Sargent CA 3-Feb-2000
When a landlord opposed a renewal of a business tenancy, the court must allow for changes in planning policy which affected the parties. Planning permission had originally been subject to a condition that it be used not by the claimant but by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229224

Brown v Gould: 1972

A lease of business premises contained an option to renew the lease and provided for any such new lease: ‘to be for a further term of 21 years at a rent to be fixed having regard to the market value of the premises at the time of exercising this option taking into account to the advantage of the tenant any increased value of such premises attributable to structural improvements made by the tenant.’ Where an option was expressed to be exercisable at a price to be determined according to some stated formula, without any effective machinery being in terms provided for working out that formula, the Court had jurisdiction to determine it. The Court was reluctant to hold void for uncertainty any provision that was intended to have legal effect, and where it was accepted that the option was intended to have business efficacy.
Megarry J said: ‘No doubt there may be cases in which the draftsman’s ineptitude will succeed in defeating the court’s efforts to find a meaning for the provision in question; but only if the court is driven to it will it be held that a provision is void for uncertainty’.

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1972] Ch 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Leeds Rugby Ltd v Harris and Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited QBD 20-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages from the defendants saying that the second defendant had induced a breach of contract by the first when he left to play rugby for the second defendant.
Held: The contract could not be said to be void as an agreement . .
Cited – Westvilla Properties Ltd v Dow Properties Ltd ChD 15-Jan-2010
The owner sought specific performance of its contract to sell land to the defendant. The land was subject to a proposed lease which the defendant had concluded was uncertain and unattractive, and claimed to have rescinded the contract.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229005

Potts v Hickman: HL 1941

The Plaintiff was the landlord of certain premises and had as at 29 September 1938, a right to distrain for unpaid rent in the sum of andpound;15 11s. However, on 20 September, the defendant, as bailiff for Wolverhampton Corporation, had levied on the tenant under a warrant for distress for rates granted by a justice of the peace for the borough on 11 August pursuant to Distress for Rates Act 1849.
Held: The levying of a distress for poor rates under a justice’s warrant was not an ‘execution’ within section 1 Landlord and Tenant Act 1709 (called in this case ‘the Act of Anne’). The issue was whether the distress was an execution within section 1 of the 1709 Act. The section referred to ‘the party at whose suit the execution is sued out’ and to a process to be executed by ‘the sheriff or other officer’ resulting in payment ‘to the plaintiff’. The wording led to the conclusion that, in this context, ‘execution’ referred to the process of enforcing a judgment obtained inter partes. Although the distress warrant was stated to be ‘in the nature of an execution’ it was not a process to enforce payment of a debt ascertained by a previous judgment. As to the possibility of a wider meaning of ‘execution’: ‘The House has been much assisted by the learning and research of counsel on both sides, and we further have the advantage of the full and carefully reasoned judgment of Goddard L.J. delivered on behalf of the Court of Appeal. [see at [1940] 1 KB 38.D] If the test which would determine the present controversy were completely stated by asking whether the lawyers of 1709 would have regarded the levying of a distress of rates as an execution, there would indeed be a great deal to be said for the learned Lord Justice’s conclusion. Ten years before the Act of Anne was passed, Holt C.J. in the deer-stealing case Rex v. Speed had said that ‘when a statute says money ‘shall be levied by distress,’ that is an execution.’ In Hutchins v. Chambers, where the question was whether beasts of the plough were privileged from distress for poor rates and it was decided that they were not, Lord Mansfield quotes with approval the following passage from 3 Salkeld, p. 136: ‘This common-law exemption of utensils, tools, instruments of husbandry etc. from distress holds only in distress for rent arrear, amerciaments etc., but doth not extend to cases where a distress is given in the nature of an execution by any particular statute; as for poor rates.’ ‘Therefore’, adds Lord Mansfield, ‘it is more analogous to an execution than to a distress at common law, and there (in cases of execution) averia carucae may be distrained; although there be other sufficient distress.’

Judges:

Viscount Simon LC

Citations:

[1941] AC 212

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1709 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brenner v Revenue and Customs; In re Modern Jet Support Centre Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2005
The court was asked whether the process of distraint against goods for unpaid tax under section 61 of the 1970 Act is an ‘execution’ within section 183 of the 1986 Act which applies where a creditor has issued, but not completed, execution against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228986

Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd: ChD 1975

The court considered the doctrine that a tenant acquiring title to land by adverse possession, did so on behalf of hs landlord.
Held: The cases demonstrated that ‘the law . . has got into something of a tangle’, but the doctrine, at least as summarised by Parke B, appeared to be ‘in accordance with justice and common sense’. If a tenant occupies land belonging to the landlord but not included in the demise, that land is presumed to be an addition to the land demised to the tenant, so that it becomes subject to the terms of the tenancy and must therefore be given up to the landlord when the tenancy ends. For there to be a surrender of an existing lease by operation of law because of the grant of a new lease,

Judges:

Pennycuick V-C

Citations:

[1975] Ch 321, [1975] 1 All ER 690

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kingsmill v Millard 20-Jun-1855
Parke B set out the doctrine that a tenant acquiring adjoining land by adverse possession acquires it on behalf of his landlord: ‘It is laid down in all the cases – whether the inclosed land is part of the waste, or belongs to the landlord or a . .
Approved – Tabor v Godfrey 1895
Where a tenant occupies land adjacent to land demised to him by the landlord, he occupies it as additional to the tenancy, and subject to its terms. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Appeal from – Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd CA 2-Jan-1975
Judgment upheld . .
Cited – Trustees In the Charity of Sir John Morden v Mayrick; Graham v Mayrick CA 12-Jan-2007
The claimant had owned tracts of land in London for very many years, but the title deeds had been lost. The defendant had purchased a part from a company who had in turn purchased from the claimants, but the parties disputed an adjacent strip of . .
Cited – Graham and others v Mayrick ChD 23-Mar-2006
The claimants sought specific performance of a compromise agreement with the defendant after a dispute over a strip of land. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimants had shown satisfactory title.
Held: ‘It has long been established . .
Cited – Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ChD 20-Mar-1996
The parties had agreed for a lease, and the tenant entered possession, but no formal lease was executed. The tenant stopped paying rent in 1977 or 1984. He now claimed rectification of the registers to show him as proprietor. The landlord argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228931

Kingsmill v Millard: 20 Jun 1855

Parke B set out the doctrine that a tenant acquiring adjoining land by adverse possession acquires it on behalf of his landlord: ‘It is laid down in all the cases – whether the inclosed land is part of the waste, or belongs to the landlord or a third person – that the presumption is, that the tenant has inclosed it for the benefit of his landlord unless he has done some act disclaiming the landlord’s title. . . The encroachment must be considered as annexed to the holding, unless it clearly appears that the tenant made it for his own benefit.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

(1855) 11 Exch 313, (1855) 19 JP 661, (1855) 3 CLR 1022, 156 ER 849, [1855] EngR 616, (1855) 156 ER 849

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd ChD 1975
The court considered the doctrine that a tenant acquiring title to land by adverse possession, did so on behalf of hs landlord.
Held: The cases demonstrated that ‘the law . . has got into something of a tangle’, but the doctrine, at least as . .
Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Cited – Childs and Another v Vernon CA 16-Mar-2007
The parties disputed the boundary between their properties, alleging various trespasses. The judge ordered a single expert witness. The court had been unable to establish the line of the boundary from the conveyances or the Land Registry plans. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228930

Re Roundwood Colliery Co: 1897

The court discussed the interplay of a distress by the landlord and the later insolvency of the tenant.

Citations:

[1897] 1 Ch 371

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Followed – Herbert Berry Associates Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1976
The collector of taxes distrained on the goods of the company under section 61 TMA 1970 for unpaid taxes and the company entered into a walking possession agreement. Before the collector had sold the goods, and completed the distress, the company . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228990

Hutchins v Chambers: 1758

Distress under the Poor Relief Act 1601 and other like Acts is only partly analogous to common law distress but is much more analogous to common execution; such distress was described as in the nature of an execution.

Citations:

(1758) 1 Burr 579

Statutes:

Poor Relief Act 1601

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brenner v Revenue and Customs; In re Modern Jet Support Centre Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2005
The court was asked whether the process of distraint against goods for unpaid tax under section 61 of the 1970 Act is an ‘execution’ within section 183 of the 1986 Act which applies where a creditor has issued, but not completed, execution against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228987

Lynn v Nathanson: 1931

(Nova Scotia Court of Appeal) A government theatre tax had to be paid by patrons who bought two tickets, one for the theatre and one for the tax. The tax was held to be outside the phrase in the lease which recovered rent on ‘gross receipts obtained in the theatre ‘ which phrase was to be construed in context.

Citations:

[1931] 2 DLR 457

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Debenhams Retail Plc and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Company Ltd CA 20-Jul-2005
The landlord appealed against a decision that VAT was not to be included when calculating a rent based upon the turnover in the premises, when it had been expressed to include purchase taxes.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it would be wrong to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Taxes Management, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228928

Belaney v Belaney: 1867

The testator bought the residue of a 99 year lease and took an assignment of the term. In the following year he bought the freehold reversion and, by a deed which recited that he was desirous that the term should not merge in the freehold, the reversion was conveyed to a trustee for him. He afterwards made a will bequeathing his personal estate.
Held: The reversion did not pass, but the term did: ‘It is most important to observe, that in the conveyance of the reversion, taken by the testator within a year after the assignment of the term to him, it is stated that the conveyance is taken to a trustee for the express purpose of preventing merger. The term, therefore, remained in the testator as personal estate’

Judges:

Lord Chelmsford

Citations:

(1867) 2 Ch.App138

Cited by:

Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223769

Lambert v FW Woolworth and Co Ltd: CA 1938

The court considered the reasonableness of the withholding of consent under the Act: ‘the landlords have unconditionally withheld their consent and made no condition as to payment of any compensation in respect of damage to or diminution in the value of the premises. Having so failed, they have abstained from claiming the benefit of sub-s. 2, which expressly preserves this right to them, nor in my view can they now be heard to say, as evidence of reasonableness, that the premises have suffered damage or any diminution in value and the tenant has not offered to compensate them. Prima facie, the proviso says that they shall not unreasonably withhold their licence or consent, but gives to them expressly a right to claim the payment of a reasonable sum in respect of damage or diminution in value. This they have not claimed; and I think therefore that they must seek for some other grounds of reasonableness for their refusal than those of damage or diminution in value to meet the case of the tenant against them.’

Judges:

Slesser LJ, McKinnon L.J

Citations:

[1938] Ch 883

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 19(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Houlder Brothers and Co Ltd v Gibbs CA 1925
The landlord owned two adjoining commercial properties. The tenant of one proposed to assign the lease to the tenant of the adjoining property. The landlord refused consent on the ground that if the assignment went ahead, it was likely that 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.199279

26 E.3. 76 [recte 26 E.3. 22]: 1352

In a writ of waste brought against a tenant in dower the count was that she held in dower of his inheritance and that she had committed waste in the manor of W. and he assigned the waste.
Birton. He does not show how we hold of his inheritance, whether as heir to our husband or as strange purchasor or by whose assignment we hold; so judgment of his writ etc.
Muttelowe. Our writ is general and we can have no other writ in the chancery and so etc.
So she was put to answer further.
Birton. Whereas he alleges that we hold the whole of the manor in dower we hold only one third of the manor; judgment of the writ.
Muttelowe. Whether you hold only one third or more you have committed waste in what you hold and you do not answer on that; judgment etc.
Birton. As to all he alleges as waste other than in respect of a sheepshed, no waste committed, as we are ready etc. As to this sheepshed it was ruinous when our dower was assigned and so collapsed and we have erected a new sheepshed with our own timber; judgment etc.
Muttelowe. In respect of that: that you have committed waste as we have suggested by our writ, as we are ready to prove etc.
STOWFORD, J. She has alleged a matter on which you may demur for judgment if you wish; but you will not get to a general averment on what she has said. So answer what she has said.
Muttelowe. She has committed waste as we alleged and has not erected a new building as she has said, as we are ready etc.

Citations:

[1352] [Co. Litt. 53a (g)]

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196932

12 H.4.5: 1410

(Year Books) The abbot of Sherborne brought a writ of waste against two husbands and their wives and when the grand distress was returned one husband and wife defaulted and the other husband and wife appeared.
Skrene . . if I lease buildings for a term of years and they are unroofed by a sudden accident I will have no action of waste for that.
HULL, J. What you say is not law because although initially it will not be adjudged waste committed by him but by act of God if he allows the building to remain without a roof and so the timber is damaged he is answerable for that waste because that is his default and by law he is obliged to roof the building.
Skrene. If the whole building is blown down by a sudden wind I am not obliged to rebuild it.
HULL, J. I concede that but where the timbers are standing, which are the substance of the building, and decay for lack of roofing, that is obviously waste.
Hull J. (sitting with Thirning, C.J. and Hankford, J.) thus expressed the view (to which there was no reported dissent) arguendo that a tenant for years is liable if through his default he fails to keep the building in repair.

Citations:

[1410] [Co. Litt. 53a (g)]

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196735

5 E.4 89: 1465

A writ of waste was brought and declaration made that the waste had been committed in a messuage, namely in one hall and assigned the waste in a chamber etc. and in a kitchen and assigned the waste in allowing the kitchen to fall down because he did not put piers under the walls of the kitchen called the ‘grunsel’ etc. Judgment was asked of the count as this could not be waste to allow the ‘grunsels’ of a building to waste, for the tenant, namely the termor or lessee, is not obliged to have this thing repaired any more than the timber of the messuage because if he keep the buildings roofed so that the timber does not waste because of lack of this nor the grunsels of the building nor the timber of the walls the tenant does enough on his part because he is not obliged to repair the timber of the house nor of the ‘grunsels’ which is the basic structure of the building as much as the posts and the timber of the building. But repairs of this sort belong solely, as it seems, to the lessor, the lord, and not to the tenant and thus it seems that this previously mentioned is not waste in the tenant etc. According to some of the court it seemed to the contrary for if the tenant allow the ‘grunsels’ to waste and by his failure to protect or to remove water which flows or runs onto this or earth or dung or other nuisance which lies or rests on it the tenant will be charged with this as much as if he broke the ‘grunsels’ and caused the building to fall down because the tenant is at least obliged to ensure that which is leased to him is in as good a condition as it was when it was leased to him. So in the case here if the plaintiff had declared that he leased this kitchen to him well-roofed and with good ‘grunsels’ and good walls and all in good condition and then the tenant allowed the ‘grunsels’ to waste and rot and so the building fell down then the tenant, as it seems, will be charged with waste as a result of his own folly. Likewise here because by this declaration it will be taken by common understanding that the kitchen was prima facie sufficient and was good throughout, that is, in good repair above and below etc. and so then by his sufferance, he declared further, he suffered the ‘grunsels’ to be wasted and that cannot be taken otherwise than that everything was fine at first and now by his sufferance was otherwise and a tenant will be put by the law at least to repair it because he leased it to him to be left in as good a condition every time and thus to repair and look after it in at least as good a condition as he found it; and otherwise he is chargeable with waste etc.
Littleton. This matter goes to our action in this respect.
Catesby. I was taught that this is an exception to the count and by this the whole count is abatable.
CHOKE, J. If this is or is not adjudged waste, whichever one, that will only affect the action in this respect, for if it is not adjudged waste the plaintiff will not be barred by this except from this part of his claim and the remainder will still stand etc.
And because the better opinion of the court was that the count was good the defendant passed over and pleaded no waste.

Citations:

[1465] [Viner 446 no 9]

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196738

In re Oak Pits Colliery Co: CA 1882

The court examined the basis of the rule that the court has a discretion to order a liquidator to pay the full rent of a property he retained: ‘When the liquidator retains property for the purpose of advantageously disposing of it, or when he continues to use it, the rent of it ought to be regarded as a debt contracted for the purposes of winding up the company, and ought to be paid in full like any other debt or expense properly incurred by the liquidator for the same purpose . .’ It would be just and equitable, in these circumstances to treat the rent liability as if it were an expense of the winding up and to accord it the same priority.

Judges:

Lindley LJ

Citations:

(1882) 21 Ch D 322

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kahn and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue; In re Toshoku Finance plc HL 20-Feb-2002
A company went into liquidation, being owed substantial sums by another company in the same group, but itself insolvent. A settlement did not include accrued interest, but was claimed to be taxed as if it had, and on an accruals basis. If so, was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190097

Campden Hill Towers v Gardner: CA 1977

A flat was let by an underlease for seven years. The lease excluded the outside walls of the flat, but the tenant covenanted to pay for repairs to the building through a service charge. The tenant refused to pay the service charge which included the costs of repairing a neighbouring block also (included within the definition of the premises by the underlease).
Held: The court will ask whether, in the ordinary use of words, the part of the house at issue would be regarded as structure and exterior. In this case that included the outside walls, the outside of interior party walls, the outer sides of the horizontal divisions between the flat and the flats above and below, and the structural framework and beams directly supporting the floors, ceilings and walls. The landlord could only recover for those items which it was obliged to repair, namely the external parts of the flat within the underlease, and could not recover the cost of repairing those parts it was obliged to repair in any event under the section.
Megaw LJ said: ‘[a]nything which, in the ordinary use of words, would be regarded as a part of the structure, or of the exterior, of the particular ‘dwelling house’ [sc the third floor flat], regarded as a separate part of the building, would be within the scope of paragraph (a).’, although ‘other parts of the outside walls and other parts of the structure of the block’ are ‘not ‘of the dwelling house’, and the paragraph expressly and deliberately uses the limiting words, as defined in the section itself, relating the paragraph to ‘the dwelling house”.

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1977] 2 WLR 159, [1977] QB 823

Statutes:

Housing Act 1961 32(1)(a) 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Irvine v Moran 1991
The tenant took a lease for under 7 years, accepting repairing and other obligations. The question was how those obligations fitted the landlord’s implied obligations under section 32, and the effect of the section on decorating covenants. The . .
Cited – Wycombe Health Authority v Barnett CA 1982
A student tenant left the property for a few days. Whilst she was away, the pipes froze, cracked, and then burst. The landlord complained that he had neither turned off the water, nor lagged the pipes.
Held: The tenant had no such obligation . .
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.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187656

Morrow v Nadeem: 1981

In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was invalid. It was a form preescribed by the rules requiring the correct identification of the landlord. The court considered also the effect of the omission to inform a proposed lessee about what would happen on a reference to a rent assessment committee on the substitution of council tax for poll tax. It would be a source of confusion rather than an evident error.

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1381

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25, Landlord & Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1957 (SI 1957/1157),

Cited by:

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 – Pearson v Alyo CA 1990
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187736

Harmond Properties Ltd v Gajdzis: CA 1968

The County Court decided that a notice to quit given to a tenant by a director of the landlord company in his own name was valid.
Held: The decision was correct. The director had carried out the letting and acted as if he were the landlord in every way. He was held to have been the general agent of the landlord.

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1858

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA 9-Jun-1997
Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agency

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.188164

Heslop v Burns: CA 1974

The defendants had lived in a house rent free for a long period. After the owner died, his executors sought possession saying the defendants were mere licencees. The defendants claimed a tenancy at will, and that the right now asserted was statute barred.
Held: There was no agreement, and no evidence of an intention to create a tenancy. The act of allowing them into possession was merely an act of bounty, and a licence only was created. Courts should nowadays be less inclined to find a tenancy at will.
The possession of a licensee can never be adverse.

Judges:

Stamp, Roskill, and Scarman LJJ

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 1241, [1974] 3 All ER 406

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Facchini v Bryson 1952
The court held that in all the reported cases where it was held that an agreement was a licence rather than a tenancy: ‘In all the cases where an occupier has been held to be a licensee there has been something in the circumstances, such as a family . .

Cited by:

Cited – Goomti Ramnarace v Harrypersad Lutchman PC 21-May-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant had gone into possession of land by consent, and many years later declined to leave. The claimant said the period of her adverse possession was insufficient but she claimed a tenancy. The claimant asserted that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183130

Hildebrand v Lewis: CA 1941

B had granted to L a sublease of premises where the rent was payable quarterly in advance. He fell into arrears with his rent and the landlord served on L a notice under the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 section 6 with the result that L became became liable to pay to B’s landlords the rent payable under the sublease period. In September 1940 the premises were damaged by enemy action and L gave to B a notice of disclaimer under the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act 1939 section 4. B did not give L a notice to avoid disclaimer under section 11 of the Act but B’s landlords purported to do so. They also began an action against L claiming the rent due in respect of the premises for the quarter beginning September 1940. L paid 22 pounds into court alleging that no rent was payable after October
Held: 1) B and not his landlords was the landlord of L within the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act 1939 section 24 and therefore the pretended notice to avoid disclaimer served on L by his landlords was not a good notice and L’s notice of disclaimer was wholly unaffected thereby; 2) There being no provision in section 8 of the 1939 Act dealing with apportionment of rent in the event of a notice of of disclaimer being given L was liable to B’s landlords for the whole of the quarters rent payable in advance in September and not merely for the rent payable down to the date on which he said his notice of disclaimer on B.
The Court citing Ellis in support, described it as ‘well settled that where rent is payable in advance the Apportionment Act does not apply’.

Citations:

[1941] 2 KB 135, [1941] 2 All ER 584, 110 LJKB 570, 165 LT 178, 57 TLR 607

Statutes:

Apportionment Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ellis v Rowbotham CA 1900
The plaintiff had let and the defendant had taken a tenancy of premises at a rent payable quarterly in advance. The tenancy agreement had provided that if rent should be in arrears for 14 days the plaintiff could regain possession by re-entry. A . .

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.616753

Shackell v Chorlton: 1895

Citations:

[1895] 1 Ch 378

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

No Longer Good law – Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd ChD 7-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether rents under leases held by the company had become expenses in the administration. . .
Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Cited – Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc (No 2) ChD 1990
The company had been in the business of leasing computers. In administration, the administrators wanted to continue collection of the rents. The court was asked how the company’s liabilities to head lessors and hirers should be dealt with. Some of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605855

In re Silkstone and Dodworth Coal and Iron Co: ChD 1881

A mining lease provided that the rent was payable half-yearly in arrears. Rent became payable after presentation of the winding-up petition and a winding-up order was made after the rent became payable. The lease was subject to a proviso for re-entry. The landlords sought leave to destrain submitting that: ‘the entire rent which became due after the winding-up ought to be paid by the liquidator.’ The liquidator submitted that: ‘for the rent due before winding-up, the lessor can only prove . . and that under the Apportionment Act 1870 the rent must be apportioned up to that time [and therefore the landlord could only] destrain for the proportion of the rent which became due after presentation of the petition for winding up.’
Held: Fry J did not engage with the apportionment issue but instead held: ‘the lessors have this power: if rent remained unpaid for 30 days after the usual date for payment, they had a right to enter and stop the working as well as to destrain and accordingly, on 6 December, they gave notice to the liquidator demanding either payment of the arrears of rent or the stoppage of the works when the liquidator, considering it desirable to carry on the enterprise of which this colliery forms part, neither stopped nor paid the rent but continued working. That is, in my view, an election by the liquidator to continue in possession of the property and, if he continued in possession of the property, could only do so upon the terms of the lease, and it was only equitable if he keeps the lease as an asset of the company and for the purposes of the liquidation that he should satisfy those conditions upon which the asset remains his. In other words, he should pay the rent in full.’

Judges:

Fry J

Citations:

(1881) 17 ChD 158

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605853

In re Smith and Hartogs: 1895

A landlord agreed to a reduction of the rent payable for the time being, with the balance in effect being added to the rent payable later in the term. The tenant failed to pay the reduced rent.
Held: The landlord was entitled to distrain for the full amount of the rent.
Vaughan Williams J said: ‘To put the case in the manner most favourable to the trustee [i.e. the tenants’ trustee in bankruptcy]; Here was an agreement that if the tenant paid the rent agreed upon by instalments, the landlord would not enforce his original remedy. Treating the agreement as being one for good consideration, it cannot be enforced by the tenant if he was in default . . ‘

Citations:

(1895) 72 LT 221

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605852

Lovely and Orchard Services v Daejan Investments (Grove Hall) Ltd: QBD 1977

When a court sets a new rent on an application for a new lease under the 1954 Act, the valuation date is, in practice, the date upon which it sets the new rent, taking effect from the date when the new lease is to be executed, although striclty according to the words of the section, it was the date upon which the new lease term would commence. A court might therefore take into account any properly forseeable changes which might take place between the date of the hearing and the commencement date for the new term.
The defendant had here argued that the proposals set out in the pleadings constituted an offer capable of acceptance by the defendant tenant.

Citations:

(1977) 246 EG 651, (1977) 121 SJ 711, [1978] 1 EGLR 44

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.604814

Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar: CA 1972

A lessee made a claim to acquire the freehold of his house under the 1967 Act. The making of such a claim prevented the landlord from forfeiting the lease unless lessee had not made his claim in good faith.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘To my mind, under this statute a claim is made ‘in good faith’ when it is made honestly and with no ulterior motive. It must be made by the tenant honestly in the belief that he has a lawful right to acquire the freehold or an extended lease, and it must be made without any ulterior motive, such as to avoid the just consequences of his own misdeeds or failures.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 48

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar (No 2) CA 20-Jun-1972
Right to forfeit waived by rent demand
The landlords’ managing agents learned that the tenant had been convicted of keeping a brothel at the premises and served a section 146 notice intending to forfeit the tenancy. He told his staff and instructed them not to demand or accept rent. But . .
Cited – Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.551034

Goldsack v Shore: CA 1950

Lord Evershed said: ‘If the subsection applies to it, it must be capable of being so modified (and that must mean modified consistently with its own terms) as to become enlarged into a tenancy from year to year.’

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1950] 1 KB 708

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Harrison-Broadley v Smith CA 1964
The court has an inherent power to make declarations even though they have not been claimed in the proceedings. In order to give effect to a partnership, the partner who owns the premises on which the partnership business is carried on is taken to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.538694

Ellis v Rowbotham: CA 1900

The plaintiff had let and the defendant had taken a tenancy of premises at a rent payable quarterly in advance. The tenancy agreement had provided that if rent should be in arrears for 14 days the plaintiff could regain possession by re-entry. A quarter’s rent became in arrears. The plaintiff gave notice and re-entered. The plaintiff sued for the unpaid rent which was due for the whole quarter during which the plaintiff had re-entered.
Held: The rent became due long before the need to have recourse to the Apportionment Act 1870 could arise. Rent payable in advance is not apportionable. The 1870 Act did not apply to rent payable in advance.
AL Smith and Romer LJJ explained that (i) the mischief that the 1870 Act was concerned to correct related solely to rent in arrear, and (ii) rent paid in advance could not be said to be ‘accruing from day to day’, unlike rent in arrear.

Judges:

AL Smith LJ, Romer LJJ

Citations:

[1900] 1 QB 740

Statutes:

Apportionment Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Canas Property Co v K L Television Services CA 1970
The rent under the lease was payable in advance on the usual quarter days and the landlord forfeited the lease by serving a writ ‘for instance on 25 April’.
Held: At common law on the breach of a covenant by a lessee, a lessor is entitled to . .
Cited – Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd ChD 23-Nov-2011
The defendant tenant said that it had exercised a break clause in the lease held of the claimant. The claimant said the break notice was ineffective because the defendant was in breach of the lease, not having paid an iinsurance service charge, and . .
Cited – Hildebrand v Lewis CA 1941
B had granted to L a sublease of premises where the rent was payable quarterly in advance. He fell into arrears with his rent and the landlord served on L a notice under the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 section 6 with the result that L became . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.450419

Phelps v City of London Corporation: 1916

Peterson J said it was ‘at least doubtful’ whether a nuisance by noise was a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.

Judges:

Peterson J

Citations:

[1916] 2 Ch 255

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.442748

Leech v Schweder: CA 1874

Mellish LJ said: ‘It is perfectly true that the lessee is ‘to hold and enjoy without any suit, let or hindrance.’ But what is he to hold and enjoy? ‘The premises’. What are the premises? The things previously demised and granted. The covenant does not enlarge what is previously granted, but an additional remedy is given, namely, an action for damages if the lessee cannot get, or is deprived of that which has been previously professed to be granted. Nothing, I apprehend, can be plainer than that at law it would not, in the least degree, enlarge what was granted.’

Citations:

(1874) 9 Ch App 463

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.442754

William Clun’s Case: 1613

If a lease under which the rent is payable in arrear was forfeited or came to an end prematurely for some other reason, the landlord loses the right to recover the rent due on the rent day following that determination

Citations:

[1572] EngR 481, (1572-1616) 10 Co Rep 127, (1572) 77 ER 1117, (1613) 10 Co Rep 127a

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.432447

Hua Chaio Commercial Bank v Chiaphua Industries: PC 1987

The landlord had granted a lease, under which the tenant paid a security deposit on the signing of the lease. The deposit was returnable on the expiration of the term provided that there was no breach of any of it terms and conditions on the part of the tenant or else the deposit would be absolutely forfeited. The landlord subsequently mortgaged its interest in the reversion by assignment to the bank without reference to the security deposit. The landlord defaulted and the bank entered into possession. The landlord then became insolvent. At the end of the term, the tenant demanded the bank to return the deposit.
Held: The critical question was: ‘there remains in any event the critical question of whether, even assuming that, as a matter of construction of the clause, there can be deduced the intention by the original parties that the benefit and burden of the landlord’s obligation for payment should pass without express assignment or novation to and against successors in title, that is a result which, having regard to the nature and purpose of the obligation, is capable of achievement. And as regards this question, their Lordships have found themselves unable to agree with the decision reached by the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong.’
After reciting the tenant’s argument, explained the Board said: ‘That the original tenant’s obligation to make the deposit is ‘bound up’ with his obligation to perform the tenant’s covenants in the lease is undeniable, but the former is, of course, a once-for-all contractual obligation between the original parties as regards which no question of transfer with the term or with the reversion can arise. The sum deposited is to be paid on or before the execution of the lease. What this appeal is concerned with, however, is only the landlord’s obligation to repay once the lease has expired without breach of covenant, there being neither any obligation on the original landlord to pay over the amount of the deposit to an assignee of the reversion nor any obligation on the original tenant to assign to an assignee of the term his contractual right to receive back the amount of the deposit when and if the condition for its repayment is fulfilled. It is bound up with the tenant’s covenant only, as it were, at one remove, as being an obligation correlative to a contractual obligation which is itself connected with the performance of covenants touching and concerning the land.’
The Board concluded: ‘There is not, on any conceivable construction of the clause, anything which either divests the original tenant of his contractual right to receive back after assignment the deposit which he had paid or which entitles an assignee from him to claim the benefit of the sum to the exclusion of his assignor; and, plainly, the money cannot be repaid more than once. Equally, there is not on any conceivable construction anything in the clause which entitles the assignee of the reversion to take over from the assignor the benefit of the sum deposited or which obliges the assignee, in enforcing the covenants against the tenant for the time being, to give credit for money which he himself has never received and to which he has no claim. Whilst it is true that the deposit is paid to the original payee because it is security for the performance of contractual obligations assumed throughout the term by the payer and because the payee is the party with whom the contract is entered into, it is, in their Lordships’ view, more realistic to regard obligation as one entered into with the landlord qua payee rather than qua landlord. By demanding and receiving this security, he assumes the obligation of any mortgagee to repay on the stipulated condition and that obligation remains, as between himself and the original payer, throughout the period of the lease, even though neither party may, when the condition is fulfilled, have any further interest in the land demised. The nature of the obligation is simply that of an obligation to repay money which has been received and it is neither necessary nor logical, simply because the conditions of repayment relate to the performance of covenants in a lease, that the transfer of the reversion should create in the transferee an additional and co-extensive obligation to pay money which he has never received and in which he never had any interest or that the assignment of the term should vest in the assignee the right to receive a sum which he has never paid.’

Citations:

[1987] AC 99, [1987] 1 All ER 1110, [1987] 2 WLR 179, [1987] ANZ Conv R 158

Cited by:

Cited – JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council CA 12-Mar-2010
The tenant had applied to the landlord for consent to assign certain leases. The court had declared the right to exercise break clauses in certain leases as lost. The court had found the right to be lost after the assignment of the leases by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.426721

Borthwick-Norton v Romney Warwick Estates Ltd: 1950

Relief against forfeiture is not to be exercised in favour of tenants who suffer the premises to be used as a brothel.

Citations:

[1950] 1 All ER 798

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Glass v Kencakes 1966
The court considered the ability of a tenant to obtain relief from forfeiture for illegal or immoral use where the tenant was not aware of the breach by his sub-tenant until he received the section 146 notice. Where the tenant took prompt action to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.425602

Centrovincial Estates plc v Bulk Storage Ltd: 1983

In a lease, the term ‘original tenant’ was to refer to the person to whom the lease had originally been granted.

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1983] 2 EGLR 45

Cited by:

Cited – JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council CA 12-Mar-2010
The tenant had applied to the landlord for consent to assign certain leases. The court had declared the right to exercise break clauses in certain leases as lost. The court had found the right to be lost after the assignment of the leases by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.426717

Sopwith v Stutchbury: CA 1985

The prospective tenant moved into the dwelling-house before the terms had been finalised. The court was asked as to his status between entering and the execution of the tenancy agreement.
Held: He was a mere licensee.
Stephenson LJ said: ‘The question, of course, is, taking into account all the circumstances, what is the right conclusion to draw? Under what right, in what legal relationship, was this occupation of A’s land by B? Many recent cases are opposed to a too facile assumption that because something called ‘rent’ is accepted, or even accepted as rent, by the party owning the land, that necessarily implies a tenancy. It is always a question of the intention of the parties, and in these days, where owners of property are unable to evict those who occupy their property under the statutory protection to which I have referred, it is not at all easy to infer, by the acceptance of rent from the protected tenant, the creation of a new tenancy: see Longrigg, Burrough and Trounson v Smith (1979) 251 EG 847, [1979] 2 EGLR 42. That, of course, is a consideration strongly applicable to the payment of rent by persons who are let into property and then staying on in it; it is not so strongly applicable to persons who are let into property for the first time. Nevertheless, it is something to be borne in mind in a case where, as here, a person is let into property for the first time, and let into property by a businessman acting through an obviously experienced manager.’

Judges:

Stephenson LJ, Kerr LJ

Citations:

(1985) 17 HLR 50

Citing:

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 by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.416811

John Haig and Co v Boswell-Preston: 1915

A tenant may be able to retain rent where the landlord was in material breach of his duty under the lease to maintain fixed equipment.

Citations:

1915 SC 339

Cited by:

Cited – Inveresk Plc v Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd SC 5-May-2010
The parties had undertaken the sale of a business (from I to TR) with part of the consideration to be payable on later calculation of the turnover. The agreement provided for an audit if the parties failed to agree. TR issued a figure. I argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.410704

Anne Stephens, Widow And Administratrix of William Stephens Esq v John Langley, And Thomasin His Wife, And Jane Castleton: 1673

Bill by the Administratrix of the Lessee against the Administratrix of the Lessor, to be relieved for what she had paid to the said Administratrix, whose Administration was afterwards repealed and granted to another, who sued for the said Rent, and had obtained a Verdict and Judgment against the Administratrix of the Lessee for the same, the Plaintiff was relieved, for that it was paid to the Defendant, who
was then the visible Administratrix.

Citations:

[1673] EngR 7, (1673) Fin H 40, (1673) 23 ER 22 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.406189

Wallis Fashion Group Ltd v CGU Life Insurance: ChD 2001

Neuberger J said that the 1995 Act: ‘represents a sea change in the law relating to a tenant’s liability after he assigns the lease’.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

(2001) PandCR 28

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Good Harvest Partnership Llp v Centaur Services Ltd ChD 23-Feb-2010
The court considered whether the 1995 Act operated to prevent a guarantor of a lessee being required to provide a similar guarantor for an assignee. The tenant had created a sub-lease, and the lease required its guarantor to provide a similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.401964

Bushnell v Parsons: 1703

A. makes a lease to B. (his wife’s nephew) for 21 years, for payment of his debts and legacies, and at the same time by will, taking notice of the said lease, devises the lands, after the expiration of the said lease, to C. his nephew and heir, and makes R executor. A, lives twelve years, and pays all his debts himself ; and the personal estate was sufficient for the legacies. C. brings his bill to have the lease delivered up, the trusts being performed, but dismissed, the reversion only after the expiration of the term being devised to him.

Citations:

[1703] EngR 9, (1703) Prec Ch 218, (1703) 24 ER 107 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.392162

Hodsden v Harris: 1685

In debt upon an award, to which the defendant pleads the Statute of Limitations, and that the cause of action accrewed not within six years ; and to this the plaintiff demurred, and Jones pro deferidant, albeit the award be by writing, yet the submission being paroll it’s a good plea, this action being not founded on the specialty nor profert hic in Curiam, altedg’d Hutt. 109, Freeman, andc. it’s agreed in debt for rent on a lease paroll, it’s a good plea, contra on lease by indenture

Citations:

[1685] EngR 1716, (1685) 2 Keb 497, (1685) 84 ER 312 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.398491

Handel v The City of London Brewery: 1901

Citations:

[1901] Ch D 496

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swayne and Co (A Firm) CA 26-Aug-1998
The parties entered into a regulated copier finance agreement. The defendant defaulted. The plaintiffs served a notice to determine the agreement, but providing what sum was to be paid to continue. The defendant said that the notice specified the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.349084

Stacey v Hill: CA 1901

The surety for performance of the tenant’s covenants under the lease which was ‘to remain in force concurrently with the lease for a period of five years’ was discharged by the disclaimer of the lease by the insolvent tenant’s liquidator. The lease was determined from the date of the disclaimer. The surety liability was also determined and that the action on the guarantee was not maintainable.

Citations:

[1901] 1 KB 660

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others HL 22-Feb-1996
The guarantor of an original tenant under the lease remains liable after the disclaimer the lease on insolvency. The disclaimer operates to determine the lease altogether with the result that the landlord’s reversion is accelerated. ‘In order to . .
Cited – Shaw v Doleman CA 1-Apr-2009
The landlord had taken a guarantee of the lease from the tenant when granting a licence to assign to the new tenant. That new tenant had become insolvent and the liquidator had disclaimed the lease. The court considered the position under Hindcastle . .
Cited – Basch v Stekel and Another CA 25-Jul-2000
The deceased had given a guarantee of the tenant’s covenant given by his company under a lease. The court was asked whether the obligations under the guarantee survived his death after he company was wound up.
Held: Chadwick LJ explained the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.341218