Category: Landlord and Tenant

Taj v Ali: CA 28 Apr 2000

A tenant was in very substantial arrears, but succeeded in having a claim for failure to repair set off against them leaving thirteen thousand pounds outstanding. The judge ordered possession but suspended it on terms which would require the arrears to be paid off over 55 years. The landlord’s appeal succeeded. The judge had already allowed for the landlord’s delay in acting, and such an order could only be made where the tenant had a prospect of paying off the arrears within a reasonable and definite time.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89693

Shepping and another v Osada: CA 23 Mar 2000

The time limit on the recovery of possession of property subject to a tenancy to within one year of the landlord becoming aware of the death of the tenant required proceedings to have been issued within the year. The service of the notice requiring possession did not satisfy the requirement which was strictly for proceedings.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 Sch2 Part 1 Ground 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89226

Rogers v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 10 Nov 1999

A local authority landlord had obtained a possession order against the tenant, for arrears of rent, but allowed the tenant to continue in possession, and eventually agreed to the order for possession being revoked. At that time the tenant became a statutory tenant, and was deemed to have been so for the intervening period. The tenant then had standing to claim damages for the landlords failure to repair in that period.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999, (1999) 32 HLR 361

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Newham v Hawkins and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The landlord had obtained a possession order, but the tenant continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser, claiming entitlement as successors in title. Rent arrears had accrued, but even if the tenant had paid thenm the council would have . .
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 . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88847

Champtaloup v Thomas: 1977

New South Wales – an election to terminate must generally occur within a reasonable time of the discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the right. If the lessee of a flat, on learning of the lessor’s breach, communicated to the lessor that he or she desired to consider his or her position, and in the meantime continued to occupy the flat and ride up and down in the lift, the lessee may not be found to have affirmed the contract (at least until a reasonable time had passed) even though the right to occupy and ride arose only by virtue of the lease.
Glass JA said: ‘To impose the further requirement that the donee [of a legal right] must be actuated by a legitimate purpose, thus forcing a judicial trek through the quagmire of mixed motives would be, in my opinion, a dangerous and needless innovation.’

Judges:

Mahoney JA, Street CJ

Citations:

[1977] 2 NSWLR 264

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.602120

Thompson v Park: 1944

Goddard LJ rejected a submission regarding recovery of pssession after a forced entry, saying: ‘Having got back into the house, . . with strong hand and with multitude of people, he has established himself in the house, and he then says : ‘I ought not to have an injunction given against me to make me go out because I got back here . . and therefore, I want the status quo preserved.’ The status quo that could be preserved was the status quo that existed before these illegal and criminal acts on the part of the defendants. It is a strange argument to address to a court of law that we ought to help the defendant who has trespassed and got himself into these premises in the way in which he has done and to say that that would be preserving the status quo and a good reason for not granting an injunction.’

Judges:

Goddard LJ

Citations:

[1944] KB 408

Cited by:

Disapproved – Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough Council CA 1980
In an appropriate case, a court will protect a contractual licence to occupy land by injunction or specific performance, where damages would not be an adequate remedy. A decree could issue where there was a wrongful repudiation of the licence, even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.472104

London and Associated Investment Trust Plc v Calow: 1986

The defendants had sought premises for a consulting business. A licence was initially given to allow the premises to be prepared for occupation, but then a head lease was granted. An underlease for the defendant was prepared, but not executed. On the defendant leaving, the claimants said that the defendant was bound as tenant to pay the balance of the rent haiving taken exclusive occupation on the terms of he draft lease.
Held: The occupation had all the characteristics of a tenancy, and the principles in Street v Mountford applied also to commercial lettings. It was a tenancy.

Judges:

Paul Baker QC J

Citations:

[1986] 2 EGLR 80, [1987] 53 P and CR 340, [1986] 280 EG 1252

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Mann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd v Longmint Aviation Ltd and Another ChD 19-Aug-2011
Administrators of the claimant company asserted that the company had held informal leases of two hangars owned by the defendant, and also complained of their transfer at an undervalue. The first defendant said that the occupations were under license . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.443250

City of London Corporation v Fell: 1993

The benefit and burden of a break clause in a lease will ordinarily pass with the reversion or the term, as ‘touching and concerning’ the respective estates of the landlord and the tenant and as conditions of the enjoyment of those estates.

Citations:

[1993] QB 590

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: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.426723

Southward v Millard: 1675

In an ejectione firme, the defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon which a special verdict was found. Nicholls possessed of a term for 1000 years, devised the same to E. his daughter for life, the remainder to John Holloway, and made Lowe the husband of the daughter his executor and died : John Holloway devised his interest to Henry and George Holloway, and made Oliver and others his executors and died ; afterwards Lowe spake these words : If E. my wife were dead, my estate in the premisses were ended, and then it remains to the Holloways. E. died, the executors of John Holloway made the lease to the plaintiff, and Lowe made the lease to the defendant, who entred upon the plaintiff who brought ejectione firme; and whether upon the whole matter the defendant were guilty or not of the trespass and ejectment supposed, the jury referred to the Court : and the points upon the case are two. First, whether the words spoken. by Lowe the executor be a sufficient assent to the devise or not: admitting that it is, then the second point is, whether this assent came in due time or not, as to the interest of John Holloway in the remainder, because he died before the words spoken which should make the assent; and as to that, the point is no other, but that the legatee dieth before assent to the legacie, whether aeserit afterwards came too late, or that the legacie shall be thereby lost or not, that is the question : and by Justice Mallet, it is a good assent, and that in due time, and here some things ought to be cleared in the case. First, that the devise to John Holloway in the remainder is good by way of executory devise. Secondly, that the devise by John Holloway to Henry and Gaorge is a void devise, because but a possibility. Thirdly, that the assent to the first devise is an assent also to him in the remainder. And lastly, that if an executor enter generally, he is in as executor arid not as devisee: all which are resolved in Lampetts and in Matthew Mannings case. Now these cases being admitted, the question is, whether that Lowe the executor here hath made a sufficient declaration, to take the term as devisee in the right of his wife, or not : for he hath his election to take it as executor, or all the right of his wife ; and as I conceive
he hath made a good election to have it as legatee in the right of his wife.

Citations:

[1675] EngR 1535, (1675) March NR 135, (1675) 82 ER 445

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant, Wills and Probate

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.405660

Smedley v Chumley and Hawke Ltd: CA 1981

Damage to a recently constructed restaurant built on a concrete raft on piles over a river could be cured only by putting in further piles so that the structure of the walls and roof of the restaurant were stable and safe upon foundations made structurally stable.
Held: The landlord was liable under its repairing covenant.

Citations:

(1981) 44 P and CR 50

Cited by:

Cited – Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council CA 1986
Because of fungus, mould growth and dampness, the tenant’s council house was virtually unfit for human habitation in the winter when the condensation was at its worst. Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act implied in the tenancy a covenant by the council to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.375585

Sidney Bolsom Investment Trust Ltd v E Karmios and Co (London) Ltd: CA 1956

The tenants had intended to ask for a new tenancy of 14 years, but by mistake, the notice of request implied a new lease of seven years. The request nevertheless set out the duration of the proposed new tenancy. The tenants tried to bring in parol evidence to show the mistake. The tenant argued that the request was invalid because it was made under a mistake. The judge had admitted evidence of the mistake.
Held: The additional evidence was inadmissible.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I do not think that that evidence was admissible. This case falls, to my mind, within the general principle that parol evidence cannot be admitted to add to, vary, or contract the terms of a written document. Once a tenant, whatever his inmost state of mind, has to all outward appearances made a valid request in the prescribed form setting out his proposals, he cannot thereafter rely on his own mistake to say that it was a nullity or invalid, no matter how important the mistake was.’ and
‘But in order to work as an estoppel, the representation must be clear and unequivocal, it must be intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on. And when I say it must be ‘intended to be acted upon,’ I would add that a man must be taken to intend what a reasonable person would understand him to intend. In short, the representation must be made in such circumstances as to convey an invitation to act on it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1956] 1 QB 529, [1956] 1 All ER 536, [1956] 2 WLR 625

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 26

Cited by:

Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others ChD 5-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.374700

Cuthbertson v Irving: 7 Jul 1860

Held: Decision affirmed. Neither the lessee nor the lessor can dispute one another’s title and if the lessor without a legal estate later acquires one, the estoppel is ‘fed’

Citations:

[1860] EngR 980, (1860) 6 H and N 135, (1860) 158 ER 56

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

Appeal from – Cuthbertson v Irving 24-Jun-1859
Martin B said: ‘There are some points in the law relating to estoppels which seem clear. First, when a lessor without any legal estate or title demises to another, the parties themselves are estopped from disputing the validity of the lease on that . .

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.285819

Moses v Lovegrove: CA 29 Apr 1952

The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had acquired the title to the property by adverse possession.
Held: A rent book did not constitute a tenancy agreement, or lease in writing. Evershed MR said: ‘The alleged lease in writing consisted of the rent book, which was put in evidence. The judge rejected the view that the rent book was such a lease in writing within the meaning of the Act, and I think he was entirely right in that conclusion.
The rent book is, I think, what it purports to be, and what it is called, a rent book, that is, a book containing acknowledgements for payment of weekly sums of rent, and containing also, in pursuance of the terms of the legislation, a reference to the conditions on which the tenant was holding his tenancy. I think that on the face of it, it was not intended to be, and is not, a contract for granting a tenancy, still less a lease creating an estate.’ and ‘The notion of adverse possession, which is enshrined now in section 10, is not new; the section is a statutory enactment of the law in regard to the matter as it had been laid down by the courts in interpreting the earlier Limitation Statutes.’
Romer LJ said: ‘The tenancy was quite obviously an oral weekly tenancy, with the result that time started to run by virtue of section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1939, from one week after the last payment of rent, which was on May 28, 1938.’ and
‘As no notice to quit was given, the tenant could not thereafter be said to be in immediate adverse possession in the ordinary sense, for he remained on under his contractual tenancy. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the Limitation Act, 1939, his tenancy ceased to exist, and therefore he is deemed to have remained on in adverse possession. Accordingly, the fact that for some purposes his contractual right remained in the absence of a notice to quit a writ for possession is irrelevant, as also is the precise date on which the lessor could properly have started proceedings in ejectment. The point is that after the expiration of one week from the date of the last payment of rent, the defendant is deemed to have had no contractual right to possession, and therefore to have been a trespasser or a squatter.
Why should he be regarded as being in possession by virtue of permission or grant of the owner merely because of the passing of the Rent Act of 1939?’ and
‘It seems to me that one can, in addition to looking at position and rights of the owner, legitimately look also at the position of the occupier for the purpose of seeing whether his occupation is adverse. In my opinion, if one looks to the position of the occupier and finds that his occupation, his right to occupation, is derived from the owner in the form of permission or agreement or grant, it is not adverse, but if it is not so derived, then it is adverse, even if the owner is, by legislation, prevented from bringing ejectment proceedings.’

Judges:

Sir Raymond Evershed MR, Birkett and Romer LJJ

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 533, [1952] 1 The Times LR 1324

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1939 9(2) 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Warren v Murray 1894
A person went into possession of land under a contract to grant him a lease for 99 years, but no lease was ever granted.
Held: In the absence of a lease he was no more that a tenant at will, which tenancy could be determined at any time, but . .
Cited – In re Joll Gathercole v Norfolk 1900
Collins LJ said: ‘At the end of the 12 years the possession of a tenant who has paid no rent becomes adverse during the whole time the adverse possession is validated by the statute, and it is not competent for the landlord to say that he still . .

Cited by:

Cited – Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ChD 29-Mar-1996
The landlord’s agents wrote to the proposed tenant offering a quarterly tenancy of the premises. The tenancy was to commence at a future date. The defendant endorsed the letter and returned it to say he would abide by the terms, and he was allowed . .
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Hayward v Chaloner CA 1968
The alleged tenant (the rector of a parish) knew that rent should have been paid but had not paid it. ‘Only one of the previous rectors gave evidence. He was the Rev. Richard Phillips (dates) He knew the rectory cottages and said that the land . .
Cited – Lodge (T/A JD Lodge) v Wakefield Metropolitan Council CA 21-Mar-1995
The plaintiff had formerly been a tenant of the defendant under an informal tenancy. No rent had been paid since 1974. He claimed to have acquired the land by adverse possession. He gave evidence at trial that if he had been asked to pay rent at any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.223190

Bentley and Skinner (Bond Street Jewellers) Limited v Searchmap Limited: 1 Feb 2003

The landlord had opposed the grant of a new tenancy saying that it intended to redevelop the property. The court accepted an undertking from the landlord to carry out the works, and in default to re-offer the premises to the tenant on acceptable terms.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1621

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.216657

Regina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others: CA 1 Dec 2000

Where a local authority had to decide whether temporary housing was suitable for a family who had applied under the homelessness provisions, the location of the short-term housing was relevant. In this case, a London authority, placing a family in accommodation in Great Yarmouth, failed in its statutory duty, because the result of that placement would be to interrupt the education and medical care of the children of the family. The date when a former shorthold tenant became homeless, was the date of execution of the warrant for possession, not the date on which possession was ordered to be given. Latham LJ said that the provision was for the protection of other housing authorities as much as applicants: ‘there is a clear and sensible purpose to be served by the section, namely to ensure so far as possible that authorities do not simply decant homeless persons into other areas for which other authorities are responsible. There are significant consequences on a host authority, for example, by way of social service provision, which are obviously detrimental to the host authority and as to which Parliament could properly consider that they require protection.’

Judges:

Latham LJ

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-2000, (2001) 33 HLR 18

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 175

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Sacupima and Others, Ex Parte Newham London Borough Council QBD 26-Nov-1999
A local authority decide to provide temporary accommodation for homeless applicants outside its area in assorted seaside towns, pending a final decision on their cases. This general policy was unlawful, since the authority had failed to consider . .

Cited by:

Cited – Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster CA 22-Oct-2014
The authority accepted that it owed a duty to house the appellant, and that she was unable to afford the rents payable on housing within the district after reductions in housing benefits. She was offered but refused, housing im Milton Keynes. . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88570

Regina v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Ex Parte Daejan Properties Ltd: QBD 20 Oct 2000

Tenants under long leases sought to recover service charges which had been paid over many years, but which they had come to consider unreasonable. The landlords resisted the claim for repayment saying the Tribunal had no power to make an order when the charges had been paid. The tribunal also said that a limitation period of twelve years applied. On appeal the court said that the intention of the Act had been to widen the scope for such claims, and it would be unhelpful and unjustified to restrict the word ‘payable’ to future payments. It was not for the Tribunal to consider the limitation question.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Oct-2000, Times 20-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Housing Act 1985, Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87210

Nutt and Another v Read and Another: CA 3 Nov 1999

The parties had contracted for the letting of land and transfer as in personam of a chalet erected upon it. The parties having completed the deals could not then agree what was to have been paid.
Held: The first agreement was void for common mistake and that the second should be set aside or rescinded in equity. They had both acted in ignorance of the chalet having become part of the land, and that though a statutory tenancy had come into being, it was right to unravel the arrangement even after some considerable time and after improvements.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Thorpe and Morritt LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Nov-1999, Gazette 03-Dec-1999, (1999) 32 HLR 716

Statutes:

Housieng Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Islington v Uckac and Another CA 30-Mar-2006
The council’s tenant had unlawfully secured assignment of a secure tenancy to the defendant. The council sought possession.
Held: A secure tenancy granted by an authority pursuant to a misrepresentation by the tenant is nonetheless valid. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84392

Martin v Maryland Estates Ltd, Seale v Maryland Estates Ltd: CA 6 May 1999

A landlord served a s 20 notice and commenced work, but then found that substantial further works were required which it executed without serving a further notice. It was refused the cost of the extra work charged as a service charge.

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1999

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83444

Lansdowne Tutors Ltd v Younger: CA 27 Jan 2000

Companies with shareholdings owned by the same individual granted one to the other an agreement which was deemed to be a protected interest as a lease of the premises. Eventually the landlord company served a notice to quit on the tenant company which appeared to have been accepted. Nevertheless later the tenant company resisted possession being given. It was held that common ownership did not destroy the effect of the various acts which included acts unequivocally consistent with a surrender.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Younger v Lansdowne Tutors Ltd CA 28-Feb-2007
Renewed application for leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82951

Jones v Waveney District Council: CA 17 Dec 1999

Where a local authority, having paid housing benefit in excess to a landlord, sought to recover that excess from him, it could not do so otherwise than in accordance with the regulations which provided for this. It was not open to the authority to deduct any overpayment from later payments, and if it did so, the landlord had the standing to reclaim the deducted amounts as a debt. Such a claim was not subject only to judicial review of the authority’s actions as part of public law.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1971)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits, Landlord and Tenant, Local Government

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82620

Kingston Upon Thames Borough Council v Prince and An: CA 7 Dec 1998

The system of acquiring a statutory tenancy by succession creates statutory rights which need not be limited by normal and other considerations. A minor is capable in law of acquiring such despite not being of legal age to be a tenant though equitable.

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1998, Gazette 13-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82796

Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary of State for et Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: CA 14 Mar 2000

An Act might include a power to amend another by secondary legislation, but any such power must be construed narrowly. The owners of property sought to change its use from long term residential use to a use for short term visitors. S25 of the main Act remained unaffected by subsequent secondary legislation.

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172, Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional, Planning, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81572

Hanina v Morland: CA 7 Dec 2000

The respondent was tenant of premises with exclusive access to an area of the roof which had been used by her for leisure purposes. The freeholder objected, and she claimed that the use was in the nature of an easement which had passed to her under the section when she took a transfer of the lease. The right she claimed was an exclusive and unrestricted one. The section could not include such a right in the grant of the lease. However since she had the only access, nominal damages were substituted.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Dec-2000

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81217

Grammer v Lane and Others: CA 2 Dec 1999

A partnership involving the plaintiff took a tenancy of agricutural land. The plaintiff then said that the tenency had been extended to other land. The successor to the freehold denied that extension, but served a rent demand and for repairs both ‘without prejudice’ to the question of the existence of the tenancy. Matters were referred to the arbitrator.
Held: Where there was a dispute as to the existence of an agricultural tenancy, a party could nevertheless make use of notices and procedures for the protection of the tenancy on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. Where there were statutory arbitration proceedings also, the arbitrator had the choice of delaying those proceedings pending resolution of the issues as to the existence of the tenancy, of stating a case for the county court, or declining jurisdiction.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Mance LJ, Wilson J

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Zerek 1951
A rent tribunal could not give itself jurisdiction over an unfurnished letting. Devlin J said: ‘While they will not allow every empty threat to their jurisdiction to deter them from their proper business of fixing reasonable rents, they will . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Arbitration

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80966

Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hill: CA 25 Apr 1994

A possession warrant issued under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house may not be set aside after its execution, unless the possession order itself was set aside for example as having been obtained by fraud. If a possession order has been made, there was no need to notify the tenant that the warrant was issued on a further breach.

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 02-May-1994, Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Times 25-Apr-1994, [1994] 27 HLR 368

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85(2), County Court Rules Ord 37 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another CA 1-Nov-2000
A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She . .
Cited – Chater v Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd CA 3-Apr-2003
The plaintiff mortgagee had had his warrant for possession executed. He now appealed against an order re-instating the mortgagor to possession.
Held: The wife had been unaware of the charge, and had not been made party to the proceedings. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81203

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 tenant. That condition had been imposed under a policy which had now changed. It was likely that the condition would disappear, and that accordingly the landlord would be likely to be able to use the land for its own purposes. The landlord did not need to show only an even chance that the permission might be granted. He needed to show a real rather than merely fanciful chance.
Laws LJ said: ‘On balance, in my view, the learned judge should have acceded to the appellant’s case in June 1999, and was influenced, as it seems to me, by his impressions, wholly adverse as they were, of Mr Kenny as a witness.
I am entirely clear that we are now entitled to take account of the July 1999 planning permission: see Accountancy Personnel Ltd v Salters’ Company [1972] EGD 461. Obviously, that was not available to the judge in June 1999.’ and ‘I emphasise that the hurdle to be surmounted by the appellant under section 30(1)(g), in the light of the authorities on the subject, is by no means a high one. He does not have to demonstrate a balance of probability that permission will be granted. He has to show that there is a real, not merely a fanciful, chance.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Laws LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-2000, [2000] EG 11, [2000] 2 EGLR 45

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30 (1) (g)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gregson v Cyril Lord Ltd CA 1962
A landlord opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that he wished to conduct his own business from the premises, need not show that everything is in place to conduct the new business, but must be able to show that most obstacles to starting . .
Cited – Cadogan v McCarthy and Stone Developments Ltd 1996
. .

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: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80768

Durley House Ltd v Cadogan and Another: ChD 27 Oct 1999

Rent reviews were to be at a percentage of the freehold value. Tenants improvements were to be disregarded for this purpose. The tenant sub-contracted the management of the flats to a third party who carried out substantial improvements. It was held that the improvements though not strictly carried out by the tenant, though this might not extend to improvements carried out by sub-tenants. A tenant who could demonstrate some direct involvement in the arrangements for the making of improvements to a property could be entitled to compensation on having to vacate the property, even though they had not directly carried out the works themselves. This could be in various ways, including the supervision of the works or the financing of them.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 12-Nov-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34 (2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80184

Eaton Square Properties Ltd v O’Higgins: CA 16 Nov 2000

The tenant of residential premises under a long lease was in possession, but had not taken a formal assignment. The landlord granted an underlease to a company whose ownership it shared with the tenant. This would allow the company to reclaim tax. On expiry of the underlease the landlord claimed possession. The tenant alleged that the underlease was a sham. However the underlease had been treated by all parties as effective. The company had become the tenant, and the possession order was upheld.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80239

Crawford v Clarke: CA 23 Mar 2000

The tenants had carried out certain works, but had failed to complete them and were served with s146 notices requiring them to complete the works. The works were not completed and the property was forfeited. Relief against forfeiture was granted on condition that the tenant complied with schedules for the works. He failed and was granted relief and again failed. The judge awarded possession resulting in a windfall for the landlord. An appeal failed since the judge had exercised a discretion which was only rarely to be interfered with.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79599

Credit Suisse v Beegas Nominees Ltd: ChD 15 Sep 1993

The landlord had covenanted to maintain, repair amend renew and otherwise keep in good and tenantable condition the structure of the building.
Held: A Landlord’s covenant to keep in good repair can include a duty to put the property into repair. The wording went beyond a mere covenant to repair. The court relied on the obligation to keep the structure in good and tenantable condition coupled with the parallel obligation to ‘amend’ and ‘renew’.
Lindsay J stated: ‘Whilst I accept the inevitability of the conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Post Office v Aquarius Properties Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 1055 that one cannot have an existing obligation to repair unless and until there is disrepair, that reasoning does not apply to a covenant to keep (and put) into good and tenantable condition. One cannot sensibly proceed from ‘no disrepair, ergo no need to repair’ to ‘no disrepair, ergo no need to put or keep in the required condition’. Leaving aside cases, such as this, where there is special provision for there to have been prior knowledge or notice in the covenantor, all that is needed, in general terms, to trigger a need for activity under an obligation to keep in (and put into) a given condition is that the subject matter is out of that condition.’

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

Independent 15-Sep-1993, [1994] 4 All ER 803

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Cited – L Batley Pet Products Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council SC 8-May-2014
The appellant was mid-landlord and the respondent the sub-tenant under a now-expired lease. The appellant had wanted repairs to be executed but told the tenant informally. The tenant argued that the lease required formal notice to create an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79619

Daejan Properties Ltd v Bloom: CA 13 Jul 2000

An underlessee covenanted to pay a reasonable proportion of the cost of repairing walls and ‘other conveniences’ A slab and asphalt membrane had been laid which led to an ingress of water. The under lease clearly anticipated a wide liability in respect of all items of repair. The word ‘conveniences’ had been intended to operate as a catch-all, and the under-tenant must contribute.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jul-2000, Gazette 27-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79777

Dearman v Simpletest Ltd: CA 14 Feb 2000

Notes in the White Book were procedural rather than black letter law, and a claim for possession was not to be defeated only because the claimant had failed to join in all the parties listed in the note. Such notes were intended to be of assistance to practitioners, and not to create a compulsory requirement.

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79862

Coles and Others v William Hill Organisation Ltd: ChD 18 Mar 1998

When agreeing an extension of an existing lease, the new lease by mistake included a break clause which had been intended by neither party. The tenant’s solicitors noticed the error in their client’s favour but did not mention it. The landlord only discovered the error much later, but applied for rectification.
Held: Rectification was ordered. There had been no intention to include the clause. The tenant’s solicitors should have brought the landlord’s attention to the error, but did not. Rectification of a lease was ordered after a unilateral mistake was shown on the inclusion of a break clause which was short of sharp practice.

Judges:

Levy QC J

Citations:

Gazette 18-Mar-1998, [1999] LandTR 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Commission for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Ltd, (Formerly Coopind UK Ltd) CA 4-Mar-1995
The trial judge had dismissed a claim for rectification on the basis that the defendant hoped and suspected, but did not know, of the relevant mistake by the plaintiff.
Held: Rectification was ordered because the defendant had sought to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79271

Broomleigh Housing Association Ltd v Hughes: ChD 26 Nov 1999

A landlord could recover under the service charge the full cost of works of repair to the outside of premises even though part of the works had been undertaken by the tenant, for which breach a waiver had been given, and even though other tenants having carried out similar works had had an allowance given against the service charge.

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 148 (1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78683

Botu v London Borough of Brent: CA 16 Mar 2000

The secure tenant was sentenced to imprisonment. In the absence of the tenant, and payment of his rent, the landlord authority obtained an order for possession which was not suspended. On release the tenant had the order set aside, but the house had been relet. He claimed damages for breach of the covenant for quiet possession, and was awarded those from a certain date. On appeal the order was set aside. The authority in relating had acted properly under an order of the court.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78503

Brent London Borough Council v Botu: CA 30 Mar 2000

In the absence of a secure tenant, and payment of his rent, the landlord authority obtained an order for possession which was not suspended. On release the tenant had the order set aside, but the house had been relet. He claimed damages for breach of the covenant for quiet possession, and was awarded those from a certain date. On appeal the order was set aside. The authority in relating had acted properly under an order of the court.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78570

Adams and Another v Rhymney Valley District Council: CA 3 Aug 2000

The landlord housing authority replaced windows with double glazing with locks on the windows with removable keys. Two children died in a fire in the house being unable to escape through the windows. The authority was not liable in negligence. They had followed the current standard practice in fitting the windows with locks of this type.

Judges:

Morritt, Sedley LL,

Citations:

Gazette 03-Aug-2000, Times 11-Aug-2000, [2001] 33 HLR 41, [2000] 3 EGLR 25, (2001) 3 LGLR 9, [2001] PNLR 4, [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 777

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stevens (Through her Mother and Litigation Friend) v County Borough of Blaenau Gwent CA 17-Jun-2004
The mother of the claimant had complained to the local authority landlord about the absence of locks on her windows. The council replied that such locks could themselves be a hazard, and did not install a lock. The claimant climbed through and fell . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Torts – Other, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77639

Dickinson v Boucher: 1984

A notice to pay rent which demands a greater sum than that which is actually due will be invalid. The action for recovery of possession is based on the failure to comply with the demand, not the fact of arrears. The purpose of the notice is to tell the tenant precisely what he must do in order to avoid the loss of his tenancy.

Citations:

[1984] 1 EGLR 12

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Notice to Quit) Act 1977 Case D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279099

Sidney Trading Co Ltd v Finsbury Borough Council: 1952

Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘the test for deciding what is ‘rent’ for the purpose of the Rent Restrictions Acts is to ask: what is the total monetary payment to be made by the tenant to the landlord?’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1952] 1 ALL ER 460

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279101

Plumb Bros v Dolmac (Agriculture) Ltd: CA 1984

As part of an agreement made between the landlord and tenant of an agricultural holding, the landlord agreed not to seek an increase in the rent for five years. Within the five year period the landlord demanded arbitration in accordance with the statutory triennial timetable. The Court of Appeal held that the demand for arbitration was ineffective because of the agreement.

Citations:

[1984] 2 EGLR 1

Cited by:

Cited – Mason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279106

Pickard v Bishop: 1975

Because of the draconian effect of a valid notice to quit relying on one of these cases strict compliance with the statutory provisions is required, and the preliminary notice must be accurate.

Citations:

(1975) 31 P and CR 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279098

Brikom Investments v Carr: CA 1979

An assignee of a tenant or of a landlord could take the benefit of, and would be bound by, a promissory estoppel which had arisen between his predecessor and the landlord or tenant.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1979] 1 QB 467, [1979] 2 All ER 753

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.278700

Smith v Grayton Estates Ltd: SCS 1960

The Court was asked whether a tenancy continuing from year to year after the expiry of a fixed term by virtue of the 1949 Act was determined by notice given by one of two joint tenants.
Held: The notice was effective.
Lord President Clyde said: ‘In considering this matter, it is of importance to realise that in the present case the tenants were occupying under tacit relocation, in other words, that the tenancy was being prolonged from year to year beyond the stipulated term in the lease, but that otherwise the conditions in the lease continued to operate – see Rankine, Law of Leases, p. 601; Cowe v. Millar, reported only in Connell on The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1923, p. 346, per Lord President Clyde at p. 355. The question comes to be whether, in that situation, a timeous notice by one of the two joint tenants is invalid to bring the tenancy to an end. The argument for the appellant was that a valid notice must be from both the joint tenants, and this notice, not being a joint one, consequently is bad.
But, is I see it, this argument overlooks the meaning and effect of tacit relocation. Tacit relocation is not an indefinite prolongation of a lease. It is the prolongation each year of the tenancy for a further one year, if the actings of the parties to the lease show that they are consenting to this prolongation. For, as in all contracts, a tacit relocation or reletting must be based on consent. In the case of tacit relocation the law implies that consent if all the parties are silent in the matter. Hence, where there are joint tenants, tacit consent by both of them is necessary to secure the prolongation and to enable tacit relocation to operate. Silence by both is necessary to presume that both the tenants wish the tenancy to continue for another year. On the other hand, if both are not silent, and if one gives due notice of termination, the consent necessary for tacit relocation to operate is demonstrably not present, and tacit relocation will not operate beyond the date of termination in the notice. Clearly, in the present case, there is not such tacit consent, and, in my view, a notice by one of the two joint tenants is enough to exclude the further operation of tacit relocation.

Judges:

Lord President Clyde, Lord Sorn

Citations:

1960 SC 249

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949

Cited by:

Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk HL 5-Dec-1991
One tenant of two joint tenants of a house left and was granted a new tenancy on condition that the existing one of the house, still occupied by her former partner, was determined. She gave a notice to quit as requested, the council claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.272274

McGreal v Wake: 1984

A landlord has the right to enter his premises for the purpose of carrying out the work required under his covenant for repair.

Citations:

(1984) 269 EG 1254

Cited by:

Cited – Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt CA 1-Feb-2001
The tenant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had suffered serious injury after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a defective gas fire. The fire had not been maintained and a fall of soot eventually prevented the escape of fumes.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270925

Green v Palmer: 1944

The tenant had a six monthly tenancy of furnished premises. He said that a right given by the agreement to a renewed lease which was again to include the right to a new lease, made it perpetually renewable under the 1922 Act.
Held: No perpetually renewable lease could have been intended by the parties in such a tenancy agreement.

Judges:

Justice Uthwatt

Citations:

[1944] 1 Ch 328

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1922

Cited by:

Cited – Marjorie Burnett Ltd v Barclay ChD 12-Dec-1980
A lease was created of a shop, dwellings and out-buildings. By clause 6 the tenant had a right to renew the lease, with the new lease creating the same provision. The defendant claimed that as a perpetually renewable lease it took effect as a lease . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.259713

Vickers and Vickers v Stichtenoth Investments Pty Ltd: 1989

(Supreme Court of South Australia) The court considered whether a landlord faced with a tenant who had vacated the property was under a duty to mitigate his losses: ‘There is no reason why in modern times mitigation of damage should not apply. It is an ordinary principle of contract law. With modern leases the law should recognise the importance of the contractual aspect of a lease. Why should not a landlord faced with abandonment take steps to try to reduce his loss? Why should a vendor of tomatoes faced with refusal to take delivery by his purchaser suffer if he does not sell if he can to another purchaser and yet a quiescent and immobile landlord not suffer if he fails to seek another tenant? Modern ideas say that there is no reason for this anomaly’ and ‘mitigation as one ordinary principle of contract law applies to leases. That is to say, when a tenant abandons the leased premises the landlord is under duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by seeking another tenant. Of course circumstances may make it impossible or impractical for him for do that or find a tenant. But I think that the principle applies.’

Judges:

Bollen J

Citations:

(1989) 52 SASR 90

Cited by:

Cited – Reichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commonwealth

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.247624

Hampstead Way Investments v Lewis-Weare: 1984

The tenant claimed security of tenure saying that he occupied the premises as a ‘separate dwelling’. He managed the night club, and worked until the early hours each night and slept at the flat on five nights during each week. All his other living activities took place at property of his wife.
Held: He did not have a protected tenancy.

Citations:

[1985] 1 All ER 564

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245814

Marsh v Cooper: 1969

The landlord said his tenant was not a protected tenant since he shared use of the kitchen.
Held: The use was restricted so that the tenant could not be said to be occupying the kitchen, and that use was not shared so as to prevent the letting being of a separate dwelling.

Citations:

[1969] 1 WLR 803

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245812

Craven Builders Ltd v Secretary of State for Health: 2000

The court considered the measure of damages for a tenant’s failure to comply with his covenant to repair where the premises did have redevelopment potential but a purchaser would still pay more if the premises were in a good state of repair.
Neuberger J said: ‘In a case where the landlord has carried out the works or clearly intends to carry out the works then the cost of the works is, or at the very least can be, prima facie evidence of the diminution in value. However in a case where the landlord has not carried out the works, and there is no evidence that he intends to carry them out, then the cost of the works is of no assistance. One cannot say that a costed schedule of dilapidations of itself, in the absence of any other evidence, constitutes even prima facie evidence of the diminution in the value of the reversion, let alone that there is any sort of prima face evidence of the actual diminution.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

[2000] 1 EGLR 128

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Latimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Cited – Ravengate Estates Ltd v Horizon Housing Group Ltd and others CA 19-Dec-2007
The landlord sought damages at the end of the lease for the tenant’s alleged breach of his repairing obligations. It was disputed as to whether the roof space formed part of the demise, and the tenant argued that the works were unnecessary since the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245775

Cusack-Smith v Gold: 1958

The landlord wanted to serve a section 146 notice for breach of repairing covennat. The lease had been assigned.
Held: The person who had assigned was not entitled to receive a section 146 notice. Therefore the person on whom the notice should be served was the assignee.

Judges:

Pilcher J

Citations:

[1958] 1 WLR 611

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146

Cited by:

Cited – Old Grovebury Manor Farm Ltd v W Seymour Plant Sales and Hire Ltd and Another CA 21-Jun-1979
The plaintiffs granted a business lease to the defendants for three years. The tenant covenanted not to assign the lease without the written consent of the landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld in the case of a respectable tenant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245806

Regina v Burke: HL 24 May 1990

The defendants appealed against their conviction under the 1977 Act.
Held: To amount to harrassment, the actions complained of need not be such as would give rise of themselves to civil or criminal action.

Citations:

[1991] 1 AC 135, Independent 24-May-1990

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Upheld – Regina v Yuthiwattana CACD 1984
The defendant appealed against his convictions under the 1977 Act.
Held: Under section 1(2) the deprivation of occupation for one day was insufficient. To constitute an offence, the deprivation had to take the character of an eviction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Crime

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245855

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Raphael and Ezra: HL 1935

Parties to a contract should be presumed to have intended what in fact they have said.
The function of the recitals in a lease is to narrate the history leading up to the making of the lease.
Lord Wright said: ‘ . . the principle of the common law has been to adopt an objective standard of construction and to exclude general evidence of actual intention of the parties; the reason for this has been that otherwise all certainty would be taken from the words in which the parties have recorded their agreement or their dispositions of property. If in some cases hardship or injustice may be effected by this rule of law, such hardship or injustice can generally be obviated by the power in equity to reform the contract, in proper cases and on proper evidence that there has been a real intention and a real mistake in expressing that intention: these matters may be established, as they generally are, by extrinsic evidence. The Court will thus reform or re-write the clauses in order to give effect to the real intention. But that is not construction, but rectification.’

Judges:

Lord Wright

Citations:

[1935] AC 96

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stone and Another (T/A Tyre 20) v Fleet Mobile Tyres Ltd CA 31-Aug-2006
The defendants appealed an injunction which prevented them soliciting business from any customer of the claimant for one year, granted pursuant to a restrictive covenant contained in a franchise agreement.
Held: The injunction was discharged. . .
Cited – FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244793

Wansborough v Maton: 1836

The court found that a wooden barn had not become part of the land.

Citations:

(1836) 4 Ad and El 884

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.240412

Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Label Ink Ltd: ChD 2001

An industrial warehouse was let for a term of 15 years. A clause contained an option for the tenant to break the lease on one year’s written notice on condition that: ‘There shall not be any material breach of the covenants on its part herein contained.’ but ‘Without prejudice to any remedy available to the landlord in respect of any breach of covenant on the part of the tenant or the conditions herein contained.’ It was common ground that a breach could not be material if it was not a subsisting breach on the termination date.
Held: The authorities established: ‘In qualifying clause 7.8 that the breach must be material, it is clearly intended to mitigate that rule as an otherwise trifling breach would disqualify the tenant from exercising the option even though the court might be slow to find such a breach, where it would be unfair to do so.
The intention must be to modify that rule to an extent that is reasonably fair to both landlord and tenant. The tenant is given by clause 7.8 the right to break, providing he complies with his covenants to the extent of avoiding any material breach. In my judgment, in that context, the breach is material if, but only if, having regard to all the circumstances, and to the proper efforts of the tenant to comply with his covenants, as well as the adverse effect on the landlord of any failure to do so, it will be fair and reasonable to refuse the tenant the privilege which the lease otherwise grants. The extent of any breach, the practicality of quantifying any damage arising out of it, the efforts made by the tenant to avoid it, the genuine interest which a landlord had in strict compliance are, in my judgment, all material factors in determining materiality.’

Judges:

HH Judge Rich QC

Citations:

[2001] L and TR 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Finch v Underwood CA 1876
The landlord had covenanted with the tenant, on receipt of notice from the latter, to renew the lease ‘in case the covenants and agreements on the tenants’ part shall have been duly observed and performed’. Notice was duly given but the landlord . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fitzroy House Epworth Street (No. 1) Ltd and Another v Financial Times Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The defendant tenant sought to exercise a break clause in the lease. The landlord said that the notice was deficient because the tenant had failed ‘materially to comply with’ its repairing obligations. The judge found the cost of repairs were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.240009

Hackney London Borough Council v Snowden: CA 2001

A short notice to quit might be given by a landlord if accepted by a tenant.

Citations:

(2001) 3 L and TR 60

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ealing Family Housing Association Ltd v McKenzie CA 10-Oct-2003
The defendant and his wife separated when she left the flat they shared. She accepted a new tenancy of other premises. The landlord claimed possession of the flat, saying that the tenancy had ended.
Held: There was no express surrender within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.235946

Preston Borough Council v Fairclough: CA 1982

The landlord sought to argue that the tenant had surrendered his tenancy.
Held: ‘The bare fact that a tenant leaves premises at a time when he owes rent is certainly insufficient to enable a court to draw the inference that there has been a surrender.’ and ‘If it could be shown that a tenant had left owing a very substantial sum of money and had been absent for a substantial time, then an application by the landlord under Order 24 might well be sufficient for a court to regard the tenancy as surrendered by operation of law . .’

Judges:

Griffiths LJ

Citations:

(1982) 8 HLR 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Dicta doubted – Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.236323

Orchard Court Residents’ Association v St Anthony’s Homes Ltd: CA 2003

Citations:

[2003] 2 EGLR 28

Statutes:

Lands Tribunal Act 1949 3(4), Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.235455

A Lewis and Co (Westminster) Ltd v Bell: 1940

Simons J said: ‘In my view, what is done at these premises is the carrying on of the business of a tea-shop, and that involves, among other things, the sale of cigarettes. It is common-indeed, I was told that it was almost universal – that in tea – shops of this character cigarettes should be sold. Accordingly, it appears to me that it is no more right to predicate of this shop that there is carried on there the business of the sale of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes than to say of it that there is carried on the business of the sale of milk, or the business of the sale of confectionery. There is there carried on the usual business of a tea-shop, which involves the sale of a number of articles therein usually sold.’

Judges:

Simons J

Citations:

[1940] 1 Ch 345

Cited by:

Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd v Joint London Holdings Ltd and Another CA 7-Oct-2005
The head lease contained a covenant against use of the premises as ‘victuallers’. The tenant sublet the premises for use as a sandwich shop. The tenant argued that the word ‘victuallers’ was to be construed only to prevent the use as ‘licensed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.231052

Hoffman v Fineberg: 1949

The court rejected an argument in the context of an application for the forfeiture of a lease, that a painting in the sixth year of a lease could not remedy a failure to repaint in the fifth year.

Citations:

[1949] 1 Ch 245

Cited by:

Approved – Expert Clothing Service and Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd CA 1985
Landlords took possession after a successful, at first instance, forfeiture claim. The tenant succeeded on appeal and then brought a claim for the wrong of breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
Held: The lease had been in existence all . .
Cited – Akici v LR Butlin Ltd CA 2-Nov-2005
The tenant appealed against forfeiture of his lease for breach of a qualified covenant against assignment. It was said that the tenant had attempted to hide from the landlord the assignment of the premises to his company or its shared occupation. . .
Cited – Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd SC 5-Nov-2014
Old breaches did not support possession order
The mobile home tenant was said to have paraded on the caravan park in combat style clothing, and disguising his face, causing fear among the other tenants. He now appealed against confirmation of the order for possession. He said that there had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.234412

De Nicholls v Saunders: 1870

The existence of an agreement (and the payment in appropriate circumstances may evidence an agreement) between the landlord and tenant that on the day that the rent becomes due an earlier payment shall be treated as a fulfilment of the obligation to pay the rent can displace the presumption that an early payment of rent does not satisfy the rent when it later becomes due.

Citations:

(1870) 5 LRCP 589

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Altonwood Ltd v Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd ChD 7-Mar-2005
The landlord claimed arrears of rent and other payments due under the lease of the football ground occupied by the club. A licence had been granted for the accomodation to be shared with Wimbledon Football Club. The rent varied with the gate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223840

Australian Mutual Provident Society v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited: 1995

(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The Court was asked whether a rent review clause which provided for an open review was inconsistent with the rent review being operable by the lessor alone. The lease did not contain a ratchet clause, or upwards only review clause. The judge had held that to construe the clause as operable only by the landlord was inconsistent with the absence of a ratchet clause. The words in the lease that the landlord ‘may’ give notice requiring the rent to be reviewed had to be read as mandatory.
Held: The court reversed the decision. Hardie Boys J: ‘With respect, we cannot agree with Barker J that the deciding factors in the construction of the document are the wording of the demise clause and the absence of a ratchet clause. In determining the construction to adopt, the Court must look at the document as a whole, rather than give emphasis to any particular part. And it must endeavour to ascertain the intention of the parties by reference to the commercial purpose, and to the practicalities, for the parties obviously intended that what they provided for should work in a sensible and realistic way. Those principles are not easy to apply in this case, for all there is is the sublease. There is no evidence of surrounding circumstances that may have provided some assistance in judging what the parties intended by the words they used. Nor is it suggested that the words used did not correctly record their agreement; there is no application for rectification or for a remedy under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. The case turns entirely on the sublease itself, and any inferences that may properly be drawn from it. But these are very limited. It is understandable that the sublessor may have desired rent reviews to be optional. It is equally understandable that the sublessee may have desired them to be obligatory. There are valid reasons for both alternatives. The same may be said of the short period during which the commencing rent is expressed to be payable, and of the unusual term of the lease. There are doubtless several possible explanations for both. Even if, as Barker J held, it is a reasonable inference that the omission of an express ratchet provision from cl 3.06(a) was deliberate, it does not necessarily follow that the parties must have intended that the sublessor was required to give a notice under cl 3.06(a), whether it wished to do so or not. It is quite possible that what they intended was that, while the sublessor would not be required to invoke cl 3.06(a) at each review date, if it elected to do so it would accept the risk that despite its expectations the result would be that the rent was fixed at less than the rent previously applicable. That approach may well accord with commercial reality.’

Judges:

Hardie Boys J

Citations:

[1995] 1 NZLR

Cited by:

Applied – Board of Trustees of the National Provident Fund v Shortland Securities Limited 1996
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court considered whether a review in a lease without a ratchet (upwards only) rent review clause could be exercised only at the instigation of the landlord: ‘The fact that as a consequence the parties agreed upon . .
Cited – Hemingway Realty Ltd v Clothworkers’ Company ChD 8-Mar-2005
The lease provided for a rent review under which the rent might either be increased or decreased. The landlord had chosen not to exercise the clause in view of falling rents. The tenant purported to do so. The landlord said that it alone had the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223573

In re Joll Gathercole v Norfolk: 1900

Collins LJ said: ‘At the end of the 12 years the possession of a tenant who has paid no rent becomes adverse during the whole time the adverse possession is validated by the statute, and it is not competent for the landlord to say that he still retains the right to recover rent which was not payable to him. I think that is emphasized by the position of a tenant under a lease for years as compared with that of a tenent under a lease from year to year. In the former case the non-payment of rent does not render the possession of th etenant adverse unless he pays rent to some person other than the lessor. But in the latter case the Legislature has treated the mere non-payment of rent by a tenant from year to year as a payment to some person other than the landlord.’

Judges:

Collins LJ

Citations:

(1900) 16 the Times LR 521, [1900] 2 Ch 616

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Moses v Lovegrove CA 29-Apr-1952
The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223191

7 Strathay Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd and Another: CA 15 Dec 2004

The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord’s counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid.
Held: The landlord’s appeal succeeded. The paragraph requiring the statement was a directory requirement, and a failure to comply did not invalidate the notice. It did not form part of the requirements of the section of the statute itself. There could be no possible prejudice to the tenants if the statement was not included.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Arden LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-2005

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – M25 Group Limited v Tudor and others CA 4-Dec-2003
Tenants served notices under the Act requiring information about the disposal of the freehold. The landlords objected that the notices were invalid in failing to give the tenants’ addresses as required under the Act.
Held: The addresses were . .
Cited – Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Jun-1994
The thirty day time limit for the forwarding of a case stated is mandatory. The Court of Appeal has no discretion to extend the time limit. Millett LJ analysed the position by reference to the traditional dichotomy of directory or mandatory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222534

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 at common law, and nor had the landlord an obligation to lag the pipes under section 32. The exact duty on a tenant to behave in a tenant-like manner in colder climes varied according to the prevailing circumstances, including the length of absence and expected weather.

Citations:

(1982) 264 EG 619, (1982) 5 HLR 84

Statutes:

Housing Act 1961 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Warren v Keen CA 1954
The landlord in a weekly tenancy sought to recover from his tenant, the sums expanded by him on repairs to the demised premises. The landlord alleged that it was an implied term of the tenancy that the tenant would use the premises in a tenant-like . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hussain v Mehlman CC 5-Mar-1992
(County Court) The defendant landlord granted the plaintiff a three year assured shorthold tenancy. He now appealed a finding that he was in breach of an implied covenant to maintain the space heating, and otherwise. The tenant had returned the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.221962

Baxendale v Davstone (Holdings) Ltd: CA 1982

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 1385, [1982] 3 All ER 496, (1982) 45 P and CR 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Evans Construction Co Ltd v Charrington and Co Ltd CA 1983
The tenant sought a new lease and served a notice. The notice named the former landlord not the current landlord.
Held: Order 20 could be used to correct the name where the error was a mere mistaken description of the correct party, but not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.220645

I and H Caplan Limited v Caplan No. 2: ChD 1963

For some months whilst the tenants’ right to a new tenancy was being litigated they had ceased trading and had vacated the premises. They then succeeded before the Court of Appeal and started trading from the premises afresh. Their protection under the 1954 Act was again challenged because of the interruption.
Held: Though it was ‘distinctly a border-line case’, the ‘thread of continuity’ was not broken. Cross J said: ‘I think it is quite clear that a tenant does not lose the protection of this Act simply by ceasing physically to occupy the premises. They may well continue to be occupied for the purposes of the business although they are de facto empty for some period of time. One rather obvious example would be if there was a need for urgent structural repairs and the tenant had to go out of physical occupation in order to enable them to be effected. Another example would be that which the Court of Appeal had to deal with in Teasdale v Walker [1958] 1 WLR 1076.’

Judges:

Cross J

Citations:

[1963] 1 WLR 124

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Citing:

Cited – Teasdale v Walker CA 1958
The tenant sought protection under the 1954 Act for his lease of premises which he only occupied during the seasonal periods: they were closed and empty in the winter and only used in the summer.
Held: That was sufficient to create a protected . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bacchiocchi v Academic Agency Limited CA 20-Feb-1998
The ‘continuous occupation’ required of a tenant to support a claim for disturbance on the non-renewal of his lease under the Act is not to be lost for the normal incidents of business life. The tenant had anticipated the non-renewal of the tenancy . .
Cited – Morrison’s Holdings Limited v Manders Limited CA 1976
The tenants had to cease trading after a fire next door. They asked the landlords to reinstate and said they wished then to resume trading. Following the landlord’s demolition and reconstruction of the premises the tenants sought a new tenancy.
Cited – Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.216544

Fawke v Viscount Chelsea: 1980

Depending on the evidence, a stepped rent may well be the best way to determine the rack rent value over a period of years so that an arbitrator might properly make such an award. This was particularly so where the landlord was in serious breach of repairing obligations, but was expected to deal with the repairs.

Citations:

[1980] QB 44

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34(1)

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.218823

Iqbal v Thakrar: CA 2004

The court considered a covenant in a lease not to alter the premises: ‘(1) The purpose of the [covenant] is to protect the landlord from the tenant effecting alterations and additions which damage the property interests of the landlord. (2) A landlord is not entitled to refuse consent on grounds which have nothing to do with his property interests. (3) It is for the tenant to show that the landlord has unreasonably withheld his consent to the proposals which the tenant has put forward. Implicit in that is the necessity for the tenant to make sufficiently clear what his proposals are, so that the landlord knows whether he should refuse or give consent to the alterations or additions. (4) It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the conclusions which led him to refuse consent were justified, if they were conclusions which might be reached by a reasonable landlord in the particular circumstances. (5) It may be reasonable for the landlord to refuse consent to an alteration or addition to be made, for the purpose of converting the premises to a proposed use even if not forbidden by the lease. But whether such refusal is reasonable or unreasonable depends on all the circumstances. For example, it may be unreasonable if the proposed use was a permitted use and the intention of the tenant in acquiring the premises to use them for that purpose was known to the freeholder when the freeholder acquired the freehold. (6) While a landlord need usually only consider his own interests, there may be cases where it would be disproportionate for a landlord to refuse consent having regard to the effects on himself and on the tenant respectively. (7) Consent cannot be refused on grounds of pecuniary loss alone. The proper course for the landlord to adopt in such circumstances is to ask for a compensatory payment. (8) In each case it is a question of fact depending on all the circumstances whether the landlord, having regard to the actual reasons which impelled him to refuse consent, acted unreasonably.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 592

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.199278

Fenner v Blake: 1900

The tenant told the landlord that he wanted to vacate the premises midway during the tenancy. Relying on the oral representation, the landlord sold the premises to a third party. The tenant subsequently refused to vacate the premises and claimed that there had been no consideration for his promise to quit the premises.
Held: The tenant was estopped from resiling from his promise to vacate the premises because the landlord had incurred a liability in relying on the tenant’s promise by entering into the sale and purchase agreement for the premises. In so doing, the landlord had rendered himself liable to an action at the suit of the purchaser if he was unable to provide vacant possession.

Citations:

[1900] 1 QB 426

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v Jackson (T/a Jackson Flower Company) CA 16-Jul-1997
The defendant appealed an award of pounds 11,000 damages for unlawful eviction of his tenant. The tenant had found herself unable to pay the rent and had given notice to quit. She was then told to leave immediately. The judge awarded statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196695

Rogerson v Bolsover District Council: CA 26 Feb 2019

Appeal:
i) Whether a landlord can be liable under section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 by reason of a defect which would have been discovered if the landlord had implemented a system of regular inspection. HHJ Owen held that a landlord had no duty to inspect;
ii) If there was a duty to inspect was it satisfied by a purely visual inspection or should the landlord had applied a pressure test, as held by the DDJ? HHJ Owen held that there was no duty beyond inspecting patent defects.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 226

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Personal Injury, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.634075

Niholas v Secretary of State for Defence: ChD 1 Aug 2013

The claimant had been the wife of a military officer, and occupied a property licensed to him by the defendant. They divorced and he left, and she now resisted grant of possession to the defendant.
Held: The claimant failed. However, there was no disagreement between counsel that differential treatment as between Crown tenants and other tenants is capable of being discrimination on the ground of ‘other status’ within Article 14.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2945 (Ch)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human ights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Defence v Nicholas ChD 24-Aug-2015
Application to set aside an order granting the Secretary of State for Defence, the claimants in these proceedings, permission to issue a written possession. . .
Cited – Watts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.594558

Moss Empires Ltd v Olympia (Liverpool) Ltd: 1939

Lord Atkin said: ‘if it does not apply in its ordinary and natural construction, I do not understand how there can be said to exist any principle of law which would avoid an agreement not in terms avoided by the statute sought to be applied.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin, :or dPorter

Citations:

[1939] AC 544

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592687

Associated British Ports v CH Bailey plc: 1990

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1990] 2 AC 703, [1990] 1 All ER 929, [1990] 2 WLR 812

Statutes:

Law of Propery Act 1925 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592686

Taylor v Twinberrow: 1930

It was a misunderstanding of the legal effect of 12 years adverse possession under the Limitation Acts to treat it as if it gave a title: ‘the operation of the statute in giving a title is merely negative; it extinguishes the right and title of the dispossessed owner, and leaves the occupant with a title gained by the fact of possession and resting on the infirmity of the right of others to eject him.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1930] 2 KB 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Chung Ping Kwan and others v Lam Island Development Company Limited PC 8-Jul-1996
(Hong Kong) Various provisions had been made for the termination of long leases in Hong Kong. Land had come to be occupied by adverse possession. At first instance the judge had given judgment against the squatters, but then retracted after a later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191152

Gardner v Ingram: 1889

‘Although no particular form need be followed, there must be plain, unambiguous words claiming to determine the existing tenancy at a certain time.’

Judges:

Lord Coleridge C.J

Citations:

(1889) 61 LT 729

Cited by:

Cited – P Phipps and Co (Northampton and Towcester Breweries) Ltd v Rogers 1925
A notice to quit a lease should be so expressed as to expire on the relevant date. ‘The date of determination must be the right date.’ . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.185079

Henry Smith’s Charity Trustees Ltd v AWADA Trading and Promotion Services Ltd: 1984

Citations:

[1984] 1 EGLR 116

Cited by:

Applied – Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd CA 31-Jul-2001
The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183491

Ministry of Defence v Spencer and Another: CA 22 May 2003

The parties had varied the agricultural tenancy. A small parcel had been added, and the rent increased to reflect only that additional land. The tenant claimed that, under the Act, this operated to skip the next rent review.
Held: The phrase ‘terms of the tenancy’ was not a term of art, but was to be constrrued with its natural meaning. ‘Any other variation of the terms of the tenancy’ would include an extension of the holding to add land. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Mantell

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-2003, Gazette 17-Jul-2003

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Sch2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Defence v Spencer and Another ChD 17-Oct-2002
An agricultural tenancy was varied by the addition of a small plot of land. The tenant argued that this led to a postponement of the review under the Act. The landlord appealed.
Held: The addition of a plot could not properly be seen as a . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Secretary of State for Defence v Spencer and Another ChD 17-Oct-2002
An agricultural tenancy was varied by the addition of a small plot of land. The tenant argued that this led to a postponement of the review under the Act. The landlord appealed.
Held: The addition of a plot could not properly be seen as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183390

R P Howard Ltd and Witchell v Woodman Matthews and Co (a firm): 1983

The solicitor defendant knew that the company was a family company effectively run by Mr Witchell from whom they received their instructions. The question raised was as to the duty of the solicitor to company and director.
Held: There is no necessary legal impediment to a professional adviser owing concurrent duties both to a company and to its members or to its directors. The solicitor owed a duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill in connection with his client’s business, the precise nature of his duty would depend inter alia upon the experience of his client and therefore an inexperienced client was entitled to expect a solicitor to take this into consideration in giving advice. The defendant was negligent in omitting to remind the plaintiffs of the need to initiate an application to the County Court in order to obtain the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Staughton J said: ‘In my judgment, in the circumstances of this case, Mr Witchell as well as the company was the client of Mr Mason. That seems to me to reflect the reality of the situation. Mr Mason knew that Mr Witchell . . was the company. He probably knew that Mr Witchell derived his livelihood and some profit from the company, and was vitally concerned in its well-being. Mr Witchell had first been his personal friend, and had then come to him in connection with other matters for legal advice, both as the representative of the company and in a personal capacity. When Mr Witchell sought his advice on . . [a matter concerning the company] Mr Mason owed a contractual duty of care both to the company and to Mr Witchell.’

Judges:

Staughton J

Citations:

[1983] BCLC 117, [1983] QB 117

Cited by:

Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co (a Firm) CA 12-Nov-1998
The claimant had previously issued a claim against the defendant solicitors through his company. He now sought to pursue a claim in his own name. It was resisted as an abuse of process, and on the basis that no personal duty of care was owed to the . .
Cited – Ratiu, Karmel, Regent House Properties Ltd v Conway CA 22-Nov-2005
The claimant sought damages for defamation. The defendant through their company had accused him acting in such a way as to allow a conflict of interest to arise. They said that he had been invited to act on a proposed purchase but had used the . .
Approved – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183150

Akram v Adam: CA 6 Nov 2002

The tenant appealed against an order requiring him to allow access to the landlord to carry out works in order to provide alternative accommodation.
Held: The order was invalid. Where the tenant was secure, and opposed the access, the power to make such an order required that the works proposed were supported by a statutory grant. The landlord had made no application for such a grant, and the order was not available to him.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Sir Denis Henry

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-2002, Gazette 16-Jan-2003

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 116(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for leave – Akram v Adam CA 9-May-2002
Application for leave to appeal against possession order and for stay of execution. Granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.178199

Regina v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, ex parte Daejan Properties Ltd: CA 12 Jul 2001

The tribunal could only consider an application to review the reasonableness a landlord’s service charge to the extent that it remained unpaid. Both the county court and the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear such claims, but the provisions for the tribunal required the charges to be ‘alleged to be payable’ and that could not be said if they had been paid. A restitutionary order could only be made by the county court, and if the action proceeded, there would be a multiplicity of actions. Since each parties costs would remain irrecoverable, and such an investigation might extend back over several years, and a great deal of money could be wasted. There was also the danger that the limitation period would be disapplied because that act did not apply to tribunal proceedings.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, May LJ, Dyson LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19(2A), Housing Act 1996 83(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.159497

Regina v Rent Officer for West Sussex Registration Area, Ex Parte Haysport Properties Ltd: CA 22 Mar 2001

Repairs which had the effect of changing a house into one fit for human habitation were to be included as changes to the ‘condition of the dwelling house’. This being so the landlord was entitled to apply again to the rent officer for a new fair rent to be registered even though it was less than two years since the prior registration. The state of repair had been taken account of in fixing the fair rent.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 67(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88592

Sun Life Assurance plc v Thales Tracs Ltd (formerly Racal Tracs Ltd) and Another: CA 24 May 2001

Tenants sought renewed commercial tenancies. The landlord first opposed then consented to the renewals. In the meantime the tenants had made arrangements to purchase alternative properties, and did not proceed with the claims. They later counter-claimed for statutory compensation, but the counter-claim was dismissed on the basis that the applications for the new tenancies were not genuine. The appeal was successful. The court was not to begin an inquiry into the state of mind of the applicant for the new tenancy. The words of the section were to be given their ordinary and unqualified meaning. There was no need to look beyond them.

Citations:

Times 25-Jun-2001, Gazette 24-May-2001

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 26(3) 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.89605

Regina (Haysport Properties Ltd) v Rent Officer for West Sussex Registration Area: CA 26 Apr 2001

Repairs which had the effect of changing a house into one fit for human habitation were to be included as changes to the ‘condition of the dwelling house’. This being so the landlord was entitled to apply again to the rent officer for a new fair rent to be registered even though it was less than two years since the prior registration. The state of repair had been taken account of in fixing the fair rent.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 67(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.85974

Phillis Trading Ltd v 86 Lordship Road Ltd: CA 16 Mar 2001

A tenant wanting to purchase the freehold offered a sum without mentioning the costs. The landlord counter offered to accept the sum but with costs. His rejection of the offer was unreasonable. The effect would be to nullify the Act since it would lead to tenants paying more for low value freeholds. The power of a tribunal to award costs should be exercised so as to encourage and not to discourage settlements. The landlord should have considered whether the offer was reasonable without looking for costs.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Leasehold ReformHousing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Administrative

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.84718