In a writ of waste brought against a tenant for a life term who pleaded an order of the plaintiff and that he ordered him to dig for gravel. On which there was a demurrer for judgment as to whether or not the order was good.
Keble. It seems that it is not good and this order was void in law for there is no good order except that he who gave it had power over the thing and here the lessor had no power over the land during the life of the tenant for life. For the tenant for the term of his life can have an action of trespass against the lessor for digging his land and that proves that he has no power to order something in relation to something in which he has no interest and thus the order is void. For if I order a man to take the goods of J.A. and afterwards J.A. makes me his executor I will have an action against him as executor and this order will not help him because I had no power to give the order. And so if I order a man to kill my father I will have an appeal against him. And if I bring a formedon against a man and deliver to him a writ of estrepment and I order him to cut trees I say that this order will be of no avail to him afterwards.
And BRYAN, C.J. said that it was equally dubious.
Wood (to the same effect). And said that this action is given by the statute of Westminster II and this order by words alone could not bar the statute and said that if a man has an apprentice a discharge or licence in words alone is not valid.
Jay and Rede argued to the contrary.
Haugh of the same opinion.
TOWNSHEND, J. to the contrary: for it is gravel and land is part of the inheritance of the lessor as much as the reversion, for digging the land is disinheritance of him and it is part of his inheritance; so he cannot grant this by bare words for inheritance cannot pass by bare words and if he wishes to grant his reversion by words it will not pass; no more is his order good without a deed.
BRYAN, C.J. To the same effect and said that it is necessary to show a specialty to extinguish some thing when a man has confessed his duty on one occasion and afterwards wants to avoid it; otherwise not; for if the deed makes the duty conditional then there is no need of any writing as if I make an agreement to construct a building by indenture I will say that I have done that. And there is a difference between gravel and trees for the lessor cannot take land as it is not his but the trees are his and so he can order them to be cut; but not to dig any land whether in writing or without it.

Citations:

[1487] [Co Litt 53b (p)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196989

Report of an action of right for land which then half way through seems to become a report of a quite different action of trespass or of nuisance in which there is one relevant speech by NEEDHAM, J. If a man erect a building to the nuisance of my house I can remain on my land or in my house and demolish his building and I will without doubt be able to justify this; so in this case the defendant will not be punished for the demolition of the building or uprooting of the stakes, but as to the entry into his land the action is not brought for the entry etc. and so etc. But it seems to me that the entry is not allowable for if I lease land to someone for a term of years in which there is a mine of tin, iron or lead or coal and I enter and take the tin, iron etc, the termor ought not to punish me for this taking for he is not entitled to this tin etc. It is likewise for great trees. But for entry onto the land and trampling down of the earth he may punish me.
DANBY, C.J. It is doubtful whether if the law gives you the trees or the tin and you cannot take them without entering your entry is not lawful.
NEEDHAM, J. It is folly on the part of the lessor to make such a lease. . .

Citations:

[1469] [Co. Litt. 53b: (p)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196987

A writ of waste was brought alleging that waste had been committed in respect of a building etc. and also in respect of wood, namely certain trees. And in the count in respect of the trees he counted that the defendant cut down the trees and sold them. With respect to the building he pleaded that he had committed no waste; with respect to the cutting down of the wood, namely the trees, the defendant pleaded justification because at the time of the making of the lease the building was ruinous in the ‘grunsels’ of the building and so the defendant cut down the trees to repair the building and with the said trees he erected the ‘grundsels’ of the building.
Littleton. That is no plea because he does not respond to our action, namely the sale to which an answer ought to have been given, because if he cut the trees to make repairs and sold them before he did so the cutting cannot be justified; and so it is necessary to answer with respect to the sale as well as to the cutting.
Catesby. Although we sold the trees that is no wrong in us when we made repairs with them for now the sale is not material when repair has been made with these trees; for if I waste a building and knock it down and before an action of waste is sued against me I make another and better building I will not be punished for the waste so that, although the defendant made the said sale because it is not denied that he made repairs with them it will not be called waste because of the repair.
NEEDHAM, J. The cutting of the trees to make repairs with them is well done but if he makes the sale before the repairs are made with the wood, namely of the trees, yet the sale made beforehand is wrong and waste and however the lessee gets these trees back by gift or purchase or otherwise and make repairs of a building that is included in the lease even if this excuses the waste of the building it does not excuse the waste of the wood.
DANBY, C.J. By the sale of the trees there is at once waste even if he afterwards recovers the same trees by gift, exchange or sale or otherwise and repairs of the building are made with them yet this does not excuse the waste that was previously made by the sale because the cutting of the wood to make repairs is not justifiable nor will such cutting ever excuse the waste committed unless repairs were actually made with them, because even if he cut the trees intending to make repairs with them and then the lessee puts them to his own use or sell or give them or lets them rot or perish and does not put them into repairs that is waste and once it is accounted waste it cannot be purged by the subsequent repair. And this situation is not like to the situation alleged where a building is knocked down by the lessee and a new building erected before action commenced for there is no waste if this building is as good as the other. But that is not the case here because even if the waste of the house is excused by the repair made with the trees so that in respect of the building it is true that no waste has been committed yet where trees were growing and cut and sold that is waste even if the trees were used in the repair of the building, so that the waste of the building is excused by this but where the trees were growing is waste because no new trees are growing there and so this was initially waste through the sale and so at all times afterwards it will be regarded as waste for the repair of the building with them only excuses that waste but if there had been no sale then the cutting of the wood and the repair made with it of the building, then the waste of the house and the wood is excused by the repair made and so in the case before of a declaration of the cutting of the trees and the sale of this wood this is waste and cannot be excused afterwards and so the sale is material.
Catesby. If you bring an action against me for land such as an assize or the like and I plead in bar that the plaintiff enfeoffed such a one in fee simple without any condition whose estate I have it is a perfectly good title for the plaintiff to say that he enfeoffed him on such a condition etc. and because of the breach of conditions he entered and was seised until the defendant disseised him, that is sufficient without responding or saying also that I did not enfeoff him simply without any condition, for those words are merely surplus and nugatory and are not material. And thus it seems that in the case of waste the sale shown is not material etc.
NEEDHAM, J. That is not so but it is material in this action here as the action and declaration is made. And, sir, your plea is not incompatible with his declaration, namely that you cut the trees to make repairs and before doing so you sold them and then took them back or made repairs and this repair made after the wrong does not excuse the waste.
And then this matter was well argued in court: whether the count was good on this point and material. And it was held by the better opinion of the court that it is and it was good enough because the statute is that no-one is allowed to make waste, sale or destruction etc. And also the prothonotary Comberford said to the court that it is the common form of declaration on a writ of waste for sale of wood to enter ‘by sale or by burning’ and so in the declaration before-mentioned by the common form it is good to show the cutting of the wood and the sale. And yet it is not a traverse nor a plea that he did not sell the trees but it is necessary to answer on the waste as by saying ‘no waste committed’ or otherwise to justify the waste by reason of the repair made with the trees and that he did not sell them where he justifies by reason of repair as before. So the defendant must answer over for otherwise he does not respond to the action of the plaintiff as alleged in his declaration for the same is material etc.
NEEDHAM, J. In the writ of waste it is the plaintiff’s choice in declaring the waste of the wood whether to allege just the waste committed as by cutting down a wood and showing how many trees without saying anything of sale or to declare the cutting of the wood and also the sale and where the sale is alleged by the declaration that must be answered for that is more specific waste than where no sale is mentioned for where there is no mention in the declaration of sale there is no need to answer to it but only to justify the cutting of the trees for repairs without saying any more provided repairs have been made.
Catesby. If the sale is material then it is necessary to say to whom he made the sale for a declaration ought to be specific.
DANBY, C.J. There is no need because it is sufficient to say as has been said without more and when you traverse him by saying that you cut the trees and made repairs with them and you did not sell them it is enough for his part to say by way of replication that you sold them to such a one or such a one. Just as is true of a release pleaded without showing where specifically it was made in bar and when the plaintiff traverse this it will be time enough for the defendant to say your deed was made at such a place and thus before.
Catesby. For a release pleaded by way of bar the norm has been as you say but for other matter in deed like an arbitration or accord it is necessary to show the place and the year and day specifically and so here it with specifying to whom the same was made.
CHOKE, J. The action and the declaration seem sufficient to show the waste by specifying the cutting of oak trees and their sale and this is a double cause of action and as pleading has been made this has to be coupled with a denial of the sale; but it is not a sufficient plea to deny the sale even though it would be a good plea to say no waste committed, just as in various other actions which have double matter though the action is a single one. As where you take my animals and then kill them I can have a general action if I wish alleging that you took my animals by force so as to recover my damages thereby. And so, if I wish, I can subsequently have a special action on my case because you took my animals with force and killed them and it is not enough for the defendant to say that he did not take them but he must respond to the killing though if he wishes to plead not guilty of the whole trespass this will answer the whole action. So too in various other cases it is at the plaintiff’s election to have a general action or a special one and an answer has to be given in accordance with what the action alleges. So too can the plaintiff act in this case of waste as it seems. And as for the sale it does not seem necessary to show to whom it was made for in some cases the certainty may be shown after the tender of issue as in formedon where the tenant pleads the warranty of the ancestor of the demandant with assets against which the plaintiff will say that nothing has descended to him. It will be enough now for the tenant to say assets at such a place. And in some cases the issue or the plea will be put without certainty for if I plead joint-tenancy on the part of the plaintiff or demandant I will not be driven to show by whose gift or feoffment because I am a stranger to that, though on my own part it would be different. So in this case the plaintiff alleges waste committed by the defendant through the cutting of the trees and their sale and this is enough for the plaintiff as he is a stranger to this act of the defendant and so there is no need on his part to show to whom and so the count seems good enough etc.
And MOYLE, J. being in court it seemed to him that it was necessary to show to whom the sale was made as in an action of account for receipt by the defendant at the hands of others the plaintiff has to show by whose hands at his own peril and otherwise the continuance was good even though he is a stranger to the defendant’s actions
DANBY, C.J. As to your case, Catesby, of a feoffment pleaded simply without any condition these words ‘simply without condition’ are not material but void because by common understanding a feoffment is prima facie simple, so the plaintiff has no need to answer these words. But in this case the sale is material for even if cutting to make repairs is justifiable prima facie yet if he then sell them after having had this intention the cutting is not now lawful. And if the count had only been in general form of waste committed by cutting down wood and had shown which trees and the defendant had justified the cutting down for repairs it would have been a good replication for the plaintiff to say that he made no repairs, if he wished, or otherwise to say that he sold them, for if he did not make repairs or sold them he is chargeable with waste. And even though the plaintiff has all his matter in his declaration the count is none the worse for this nor bad but good. And the common form is thus as the prothonotary has told us.
MOYLE, J.. This is a surprising case where someone in his declaration includes all his matter and it is not laudable to include in his action the substance of the bar and of the possible replication to it nor is a writ having such content good as it seems.
DANBY, C.J. Truly they will not here change the form nor their form either for you or for me because it may happen that something inappropriate will ensue from the change, particularly where the form is in accordance with reason as this action is just as several actions are double in themselves etc.
Littleton. If they will not help us we see in respect of the plea pleaded in the manner it is that we are not bound in law to respond.
DANBY, C.J. (to Catesby). Despatch the matter one way or another.
And then Catesby said I will gladly despatch the matter: either the declaration is good or I will make a ‘jeofaile’ if it is not.
DANBY, C.J. If it is thus it is to your advantage and you will not be prejudiced however it comes out, for this matter appears etc.
Catesby. We cut the trees and made repairs to the building with them (and showed how) and we did not sell them etc.
Littleton. With your permission we wish to imparl on this.
And in this same plea it was shown by NEEDHAM, J. that uprooting of underwood or thorns is waste and ought to be specially declared. And also of the roots of trees so that the shoots cannot grow or leaving the close open so that animals enter and destroy the shoots and that is also special waste etc.
MOYLE, J. For shoots wasted in this way one will have a special writ of waste etc.
DANBY, C.J. That is not the case but the declaration needs to specify this and not otherwise etc.
Catesby. If the declaration in a writ of waste for wood is as is said by ‘selling or burning’ then if the case is such that the lessee cut these trees and did not sell them or burn them in his house but allowed them to lie in his house or on the ground and did not make repairs with them or if he gave them away if this matter of the sale or burning is material then the tenant (the lessee) must answer it as by pleading that he cut the trees for repairs and made repairs and that he did not sell or burn them, it will be found against the plaintiff if he traverse the sale or burning because in truth they are and were cut for repairs and no repair was made or sale or burning but the defendant gave them freely to another or allowed them to lie on the ground etc.
DANBY, C.J. The plaintiff will assist himself perfectly well in your case by saying that he made no repairs and so his action will be maintainable without having to respond or maintain the sale or burning, because both causes are waste. Also where the lessee cuts trees to make repairs and does so with them he can justify this cutting if repairs were made and otherwise not but the lessee will pay the wages and the salaries of the workmen at his own cost and is not to cut wood or take other such profits and sell them and with the money from the sale pay the costs of his repairs (and this was granted by two or three in the court of the Justices and the serjeants).
Jenney. In an assize for rent if the plaintiff wishes to make a title in his plaint as by showing that he has the rent by a grant or otherwise as he can if he wishes it is no plea against this to say ‘outside his fee, judgment whether without showing other title’ because the plaint contained in itself a title. But where the plaint is general and says nothing of a grant of the rent nor how the rent came to him there it is a good plea to say ‘outside his fee, judgment if the action lies without showing title’; there it is a good plea because no title was contained in it before. So in a writ of waste if the plaintiff wishes he can his declaration of wood cut ‘and by sale or burning etc.’ and then it is necessary to speak and answer to this for even though he says that he cut the trees to make repairs and made repairs it is not enough without answering on the same. But if the writ of waste be general as it can be as it seems of waste in a wood and cutting down trees without talking of any sale, then it is enough to justify the cutting down for repairs and that he did do so etc.

Citations:

[1465] [Co.Litt. 53a (p)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196986

In the Common Bench a writ of waste was brought and the plaintiff assigned as waste allowing an earthwall to stand uncovered so that it was destroyed by rain-storms; and he also assigned as waste allowing another wall made of wood to decay and also in cutting down ‘silber’ trees and apple trees in an orchard.
Rede and Wood. It seems that it cannot be adjudged waste in respect of the walls for waste cannot be adjudged in respect of any thing other than something which has permanent existence, but an earthwall cannot exist for more than ten or twelve years and if something that exists for so short a time is damaged that cannot be called waste. So also the cutting of the trees cannot be adjudged waste for those trees are underwood and one ought not to be impeached for cutting them down, for if such trees are cut down they will grow the better and one can plant new trees and have fruit within three or four years and if they are not cut when they come to the right age they rot and decay; and so etc.
Keble (to the contrary). As to the timber wall that is waste because it is part of the free tenement and the defendant may not transform the buildings leased to him but must keep them in as good a state as he received them. And if this wall had been within a building it would be waste without doubt. For if I lease a house to a man in which there are several chambers and the lessee knock down the walls which divide the chambers and turn this house into a single chamber it is waste. For the same reason that the knocking down of a wall within a house is waste the knocking down of a wall outside a house will be accounted waste. Also the waste in the cutting down of trees is well assigned for they can grow in a certain place and their cutting be accounted waste and in another place where it will not be. For if such trees are growing in a wood and are cut down that will not be called waste for there they are nothing but underwood but if this underwood be planted within the site of a manor or house to provide shelter from the wood it will be called waste if they are cut down. And if I have a wood of willows and hazels and there are no oaks there their cutting will be accounted waste. So in this case, in so far as etc.
Fineux. To my understanding (and he rehearsed the reasoning of Keble) and he also understood the waste assigned in the wall to be well assigned because by its destruction the inheritance is harmed and if the inheritance is harmed by the act or the negligence of the lessor it will be accounted waste. If the lessee remove an oven, bench, door or window that will be accounted waste.
VAVASOUR, J. to the same purpose with respect to the trees. But as to the waste assigned in the wall, none has been assigned because it appears that it was uncovered at the time of the lease and so the lessee is not obliged to cover it. For if I lease a building that is unroofed to a man for term of years the lessee is not obliged to roof it. So the waste in the wall is not well assigned.

Citations:

[1494] [Co. Litt. 53b (s)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196991

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

Citations:

[1465] [Viner 446, no. 9]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196985

In waste the plaintiff counted of the lease of a mill for term of years and assigned waste committed in the floodgates and other things belonging to the mill. And the defendant said that there had been an agreement out of court between the plaintiff and the defendant that he would repair the floodgates in recompense for the remainder of the waste that he had committed and asked for judgment if the action lay and pleaded all this in certain.
Keble. It appears that the plea is good for waste is something done only to a person for if waste was done in the father’s time the son will not punish this waste after his death because it is a personal punishment and is not something which can descend. And in ravishment of ward an agreement out of court is a good plea and the same applies in ejectione firme even though the action is to recover the remainder of the term and it is still a good plea. So too in an assize of novel disseisin brought by tenant by statute merchant or elegit but brought by an ordinary tenant of the free tenement he doubted. So in waste on a lease for life he doubted if an out of court agreement was good. But here it seems a good plea for we have carried out the agreement which was of something that was burdensome to us, though perhaps a nude agreement without specialty would be ineffective. And it seemed to him clearly without doubt that if the writ was brought against a tenant for waste before the end of his term that such an agreement would be a bar.
WOOD, J. To the contrary for the wrong is committed against the inheritance as well as against the person and this sounds in realty and by this wrong the plaintiff is attempting to recover by this kind of action the place wasted and in such a case where one is attempting to recover the matter being claimed an out of court agreement cannot be pleaded because it is an action to recover the thing being claimed. But in such cases where the nature of the action is only to recover damages an out of court agreement will perhaps be good (as in ravishment of ward, entry on the statute of king Richard or 8 Henry and thus a difference; why?)
VAVASOUR, J. (to the contrary). In this case the plea seems good because the action is brought against a termor for a term of years but it is other against a tenant for life because the plaintiff is acting to recover the free tenement. But here the action is wholly in the personalty because he will only recover a chattel for although summons and severance lie that is no argument for the action being real for in ravishment of ward summons and severance lie but the action is still personal. At Common Law there was only a prohibition of waste and that against the guardian in chivalry and tenant in dower and then came Westminster II which said ‘in future there will not be a writ of prohibition but only a summons’ and the statute of Gloucester which gave recovery of the place wasted. Thus the penalty was enlarged by statute but the nature of the action was not changed, which at Common Law was only personal. And so if an abbot has released all personal actions that will be a bar to action to him and also to his successor for damages but in respect of the land no bar to his successor although a bar to him for both. And it has been adjudged that if an abbot avow for service and has judgment for a return there will be no enquiry as to collusion and the same law applies in an action of waste if he declares on a lease for term of years. And this matter was agreed on a declaration made against a termor in 3E.4when the serjeants were created and the writ of waste brought by the abbot was in the tenet and not in the tenuit for it seems that this would perhaps have altered the case. And the reason why there will be no enquiry into collusion in these cases is because the actions are purely personal and there is no decision relating to the free tenement. Sir, in an action relating to permissive waste it is a good bar for the defendant to plead that prior to the acquisition of the writ he has rebuilt the house; so in the same way that the defendant can by his own action do something after the waste that bars the plaintiff so (and a fortiori) it also seems that he can do something in bar after the waste with the agreement and consent of the lessor and so etc.
TOWNSHEND, J. To the contrary as the waste is supposed to be ‘to the disinheritance’ and thus the prohibition was at common law and sounds wholly in realty. And even if the right to secure punishment cannot descend it is still clear that the wrong was done ‘to the disinheritance’ and a nude out of court agreement cannot bar. Moreover, the performance of the agreement is alleged to be in a part of the things in which the waste was assigned and so the repair of this part cannot by any means be said to be a recompense for the remainder; but if it was elsewhere in something where no waste was assigned there would be at least a colourable argument; so it seems that the plea is bad.
BRYAN, C.J. was clearly of the same opinion but he did not argue because he got up and went off to Chancery.
Then on another day
BRYAN, C.J. In a writ of waste one cannot assign waste in young oak trees, namely those only seven or eight years old, and on that I have this day seen books (reports) and thus it seems to be the law. Because waste will only be said for matters prejudicial to the inheritance, as for example houses, great oaks and the like but not of little things like young oaks and the like. Moreover the writ of trespass does not lie as between lessor and lessee for things for which the action of waste lies. So how will you have an out of court agreement to lie in a case where a writ of trespass does not lie but a writ of a higher nature touching the free tenement? So it seems to me clear that the plea is not good.
Danvers. If the lessee commits waste in respect of a house and builds a new house before the writ is acquired the action will not lie because the lessor has sufficient recompense in the law’s understanding. The like applies if the lessee builds a new house elsewhere than where the old house was, if this was by agreement with the lessor. Consequently also if the lessor reaches an agreement with him for some other recompense. So the plea seems to be a good one.
Keble (ad idem). Although the harm done was done to the inheritance, the recovery was wholly in damages at Common Law though now it has been enlarged by statute to recovery of the place wasted, and treble damages in lieu of the single damages at Common Law. But the nature of the action at Common Law remains the same even the penalty has been enlarged by the statute. And supposing that the harm or damage done to the inheritance was done by a stranger while the land was in the possession of the lessor without there being a lease, as for example by the cutting down of great oaks or demolition of a house, he would have no remedy other than an action of trespass, in which action you are all agreed that an agreement would be a good plea, but there as great a harm would be done to the inheritance or greater than here. He also said that the floodgates were not among the matters assigned as waste, as Townsend took the case to be.
Townsend. Then the case is the better for that but because the case is still one that greatly touches the inheritance the plea seems to be insufficient (and Brian conceded this).
So Keble because of the opinion of these two did not dare to demur but pleaded only in respect of a cartload of clay and said that he would plea to jeopardy on that to clarify the law; and pleaded over on the remainder.
See the beginning in 11 H.7 13

Citations:

[1498] (recte 13 H.7. 20) [Co. Litt. 53a (c)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196992

Waste brought against a tenant for term of years for the cutting down of one hundred oaks and in allowing the wood to lie unenclosed so that animals have eaten the shoots of the said wood so that they have ceased to grow.
Danby. It was not the practice in such cases until recently to count in this way but to count generally that he has felled the trees and destroyed the underwood and the shoots; no more than one would mention it in the count if it was a stranger who came on to the land and felled the wood; but it is now the practice to count thus about ‘allowing’.
MARTIN, J. It is a good practice for if he counts generally in this case and the other plead ‘no waste committed’ the lay men will perhaps find that none was committed.
Danby. You will show in evidence to the inquest the whole state of things and if it is so found it will be adjudged waste. And one time in the Chancery it was found by an ex officio inquisition that the lands and tenements contained in the verdict had been given to one in tail and that he after whose death the inquisition was taken had died seised and that by the permission of the tenant in tail and the verdict was held good because notwithstanding that it was found that he died seised of a good estate for each man who dies seised it is by my permission because it is my fault to allow them seisin of their own land.
Rolf. You are not entitled to bring action because we say in respect of the oaks that they are a crop and we say that all the wood growing in this wood which has been leased for a life term or a term of years has always been lopped at the age of twenty years or less as a crop. And since it is of the age of twenty years he lopped it as a crop.
Judgment.
Fulthorpe. Oaks cannot be described as a crop to lop at a certain age; and so we ask for judgment on his own admission and ask that he be convicted of waste.
Rolf. We have alleged that this has always been the usage for them to be felled at that age, and thus we have committed no waste etc.
Fulthorpe. You have not alleged that the custom of such a hundred or county within which the wood lies is such and so the custom you allege is not to the purpose.
MARTIN, J. There is no need to say more. In some places that which is called high timber is only croppable wood and underwood and vice versa according to whether timber if plentiful or not. For where there is great plenty of wood great oaks of the age of twenty years or below are customarily lopped as croppable wood but where there is a scarcity of wood it is not customary to lop it as croppable timber. So if it has not been the usage to cut it as cultivated timber show this to the court because there can be cultivated timber and oaks called ‘wranlons’ which will not become timber but are good only for burning and it is not adjudged waste and in some places it is so; and thus etc.
And then MARTIN, J. ordered Rolf to plead in respect of the shoots.
Rolf. As to them we tell you that our servants when they carted away wood negligently left the gates to the wood open and animals entered and ate the shoots but they grew back and we committed no other waste.
Fulthorpe. We ask that he be convicted on his own admission because if the animals have eaten the shoots they will never afterwards become timber but only shrubs.
Rolf (maintaining our claim that the animals entered the wood by the negligence of our servants and ate the shoots and they grew again afterwards) by way of plea we say no waste committed.
MARTIN, J. If in your protestation you admit waste the plaintiff will be able to take advantage of this as much as if you had admitted it in your plea; and so etc.
And then Rolf. No waste committed in the manner etc., as we are ready etc.
Danby. Nothing will be entered on the roll except generally ‘no waste committed’.
And so they pleaded thus ‘Ready etc. and the others to the contrary’.
And as to the oaks the opinion of the whole court was that Rolf could not have justified the lopping as of a crop unless he had said they were of the age of twenty years because if they were over the age of twenty years it is not a croppable wood.

Citations:

[1432] [Co. Litt. 53a (i) and Viner 438, no. 10]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196963

A very long scire facias case mainly concerned with other matters. Viner is picking up a passing reference in an argument by Markham that runs as follows: Markham. In a writ of waste brought against me I may well plead that at the time the lease was made the building was ruinous and then collapsed or that it was knocked down by a sudden chance or burned by lightning and ask for judgment if action lies and will not be compelled to take the common issue ‘no waste committed’ because the lay men cannot judge whether this is waste or not. So also here.

Citations:

[1440] [Viner, 449, no. 3]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196964

In a writ of waste the plaintiff made a declaration through Danby and assigned as waste the felling of one hundred oaks and also the waste made to the stumps of these same oaks.
Bingham. It appears by the count that the waste is assigned in respect of the same thing twice over, namely the cutting down of the oaks is one waste assigned and the other is of the growth on the stumps of the same oaks, but this is in law all one waste.
NEWTON AND PORTINGTON, JJ. AND ALL THE COURT. These are different wastes because if the growth growing from the stumps had been safely looked after it would have grown eventually back into oaks. For if a tenant for life cuts down forty oaks and afterwards perhaps continues in possession for twenty years and then because they are well grown he cuts them at the same place the reversioner will have an action of waste and may count of both wastes and recover triple damages twice over.
Bingham. How can that be? For the plaintiff in an action of waste aims to recover the place wasted and he cannot recover it twice.
NEWTON AND PORTINGTON, JJ. That is true. He ought to recover the place wasted just once but the damages in triplicate twice.
And then the defendant pleaded: no waste committed etc.

Citations:

[1443] [Co. Litt. 53a (i)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196966

In a writ of waste the waste assigned was in respect of a house, twenty oaks, forty cart-loads of clay.
Markham. Clay cannot be called waste.
To which it was said by the Court that it is waste in as much as the soil is made poorer by removal of the clay.
Markham. As for the house, it was so ruinous and rotten that it was about to fall down and so it was demolished and rebuilt (judgment if action lies etc.); as for the oaks they were cut down for timber for the house and the timber was used in the house as for posts, spars and panels (judgment if action lies etc.); as for the clay he dug this out of the soil to take for the house. Judgment if action etc.
Danvers (not admitting that the house was ruinous or rotten): the previous house was forty-eight feet in length and forty feet wide and the new house is forty-eight feet in length; and in so far as he has thereby admitted waste we ask that he be treated as confessing etc.
Markham. The new house is as good and as profitable as the old one was.
NEWTON, J. How can it be thought that a house forty-eight feet long and forty feet wide will be of as great value and as profitable as a house that is eight foot wide and of the appropriate width? And as Danvers well said when the defendant demolished the house that was his folly because in this case he must make a new house of the same length and width as the other, but if the house had fallen down and he had erected a new one he would not have had to erect it to the same dimensions as the old house.
Markham. We tell you that we demolished the house with the assent and by the agreement of the plaintiff and erected a new one as good and profitable as the old one, ready etc.
Danvers. We hold to the plea as we pleaded it etc.
NEWTON, J. You say well.
Markham. We ask for judgment etc. and ask that he be barred.
And thus they demurred for judgment and then nothing was entered of this save a licence to imparl.

Citations:

[1443] [Co. Litt. 53a (c)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196983

In a writ of waste
Danby. Judgment of the writ for the writ supposes the waste to have been committed in terris, domibus, boscis et pratis and he has counted among other things of waste committed in knocking down a fence that surrounds a house and this cannot be adjudged waste; judgment of the writ.
And by the whole of the Court this was adjudged no waste; nor is a wall uncovered waste but a wall roofed in thatch or a fence covered with timber can be waste, but here is no such matter shown; and no waste can be shown in the breaking down of a hedge.
Danby. We now ask that all the writ be abated because it appears by his own acknowledgement that this writ is defective in part and when he acknowledges that it is defective in any part the whole writ abates.
NEWTON, J. If this is by the acknowledgment of the party then that is true but it is different when it is a surmise from the writ or declaration; so answer to what remains.
Danby. Again, judgment of the writ because it appears from the writ that the lease was made by the wife and one T. then her husband in which case during the coverture she can make no lease but it will be adjudged the lease and the deed of the husband. So, judgment of the writ.
NEWTON, J. We cannot adjudge this the deed of the husband alone because she can assent to the lease if she wishes and then it will be said to be a lease of the husband and of the wife. So the court adjudged the writ good.
Danby. Again judgment of the writ because we tell you that the wife and her then husband T. held only in parcenry with R.K. and his wife A. as of the right of A. Judgment of the writ.
NEWTON, J. AND THE WHOLE COURT. That is not a plea unless you wish to show that A. is still living and it is still not a plea because if there are two joint tenants and one makes a lease of the whole that is a disseisin committed against her companion in respect of the moiety and so the reversion belongs only to the one who made the lease of the entirety.
Danby. We tell you that the woman who is now plaintiff and T.H. then her husband and R.K. and A. his wife were seised as of the right of their wives and made the lease jointly for the terms of their lives and R. is still living, and that T.H. and his wife did not make the lease alone as the plaintiffs have suggested; so judgment of the writ.
NEWTON, J. AND THE WHOLE COURT. That is still no plea without showing that A. is still alive or that A. had issue which is still living or else that R. had issue with the said A. and so he is tenant by the curtesy at least, for you cannot abate this writ unless you are willing to give the claimant a better writ.
Danby. It is not right that the tenant be charged jointly against those who made the lease and also severally and the said R. Kend’ has an action of debt for the arrears.
And THE COURT said that Robert would have an action of debt for the arrears accrued during his wife’s lifetime, otherwise not. So etc.
Danby says (as before) that the lease was made jointly and that R. had issue with the said A., one John, and this R. is still living and that the lease was not made by T.H. and his wife alone; judgment of the writ.
On another day
NEWTON, J. It seems that the plea is good because there is enough privity to make the husband and wife and the said R. privy in an action, because a writ of partition lies against the tenant by curtesy and it is not inappropriate that one who has the fee simple in reversion should join in an action of waste with one who has in reversion only a life interest, for suppose that the reversion of a tenancy for life is granted to two people and the heirs of one of them, then they ought both to join in an action of waste and it will be supposed by the writ that the waste was committed to the disinheritance of the one, namely the one who has the fee simple. Suppose also that a husband makes a lease for life of his wife’s right: does he have the reversion in his own right or in right of his wife?
Danby. In right of his wife.
NEWTON, J. That is right because such estate as he had in the land before the lease he has now in the reversion (but query because this is surprising to me)

Citations:

[1443] [Co. Litt. 53a (b); Viner 446, no. 12]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196984

John de Hull and Maud his wife brought a writ of waste against H. Hadenham and assigned the waste in buildings, namely the knocking down of a hall, chamber, cowshed and grange, and in lands in the digging for ironstone and coal, and in gardens and woods etc.
Pulteney. We tell you that by this deed they leased to us the buildings where the waste is alleged on terms that allowed us to dispose of the buildings there except for a chamber and a hall at the end of the chamber and that has been kept in repair; judgment if they are receivable against their own deed. As to the grange and cowshed there were none when the lease was made and none thereafter, as we are ready etc. As to the waste in respect of the land we tell you that they leased to us certain acres of land where there was a mine for ironstone and coal, with all the profits arising therefrom; judgment whether they can be received etc. As for eighteen oaks and an ash he granted us them by his deed etc. that we might fell them for the repair of a mill etc.; judgment. As to waste in the wood that is a place where wood was growing and adjacent to the garden, he granted us permission by this deed to cut it down.
Gaynesford. As for the grange and the oxshed whereas they say there were none etc. that is tantamount to saying no waste committed (and this was not allowed).
And so Gaynesford said that he wished to prove that there were some etc. and that these were wasted and the same went for the chamber which they said was in good repair, ready to prove etc.
And as to the waste in respect of the remainder of the buildings they have not denied the knocking down and sale which is a matter of disinheritance and he does not have express warranty by our deed to do this but only to make his profit, which Common Law would give him even if he did not have it by this specialty. So we ask for seisin by virtue of his acknowledgment and our damages. And as to the waste in respect of the land he has not denied that he has dug and sold and that amounts to disinheritance and he does not have warranty for that by our deed but only to make his profit, which cannot be interpreted so broadly but only to take his necessary requirements and not to make a sale which amounts to permanent disinheritance. Judgment.
Thorpe. Then is this your deed?
SHARESHILL, J. You must both be agreed and thus we assume that you are.
Thorpe. If I lease you a pond and a fishery with all the profits etc. are you not allowed to fish and sell the fish?
R. Thorpe. For that there lies no action of waste unless they sues; but if you lease me a wood with the profits am I allowed to cut down and sell? (Implying not)
Thorpe. It appears that you can for you may cut for your own benefit and erect buildings otherwise than in the messuage to which the wood is appendant and so you can give and sell.
R. Thorpe. Certainly not you will have nothing other than what common right gives you for if you take that broadly ‘all kind of profit’ it follows that you might alienate.
Thorpe. We ask for judgment as he has admitted that at the time of the lease there was a mine for stone and coal and this was leased to us with the profits by his own deed; and as we ask for judgment if he is receivable against his own deed.
SHARDLOW, J. What profit can one have from a mine when it is leased to one other than by selling etc.?
Thorpe. He may have his necessary requirements without making any sale of gift.

Citations:

[1343] [Co.Litt. 53b (p)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196927

Two brothers, J. Gray and his brother W., brought a writ of waste against a woman who held in dower of their inheritance and alleged by their count that this was because the lands were partible and counted of waste committed in buildings, lands and marshes and counted that the marsh was adjoining the sea and there was a wall for the defence of the marsh which she and all tenants of these lands are obliged to keep repaired and have done so and she had dug a perch in the wall and also because of lack of repair the wall is not repaired and so the sea has entered the marsh and has taken away around twenty-four acres to the depth of one foot and the remainder of the marsh is under water.
Mowbray. Judgment of the count because he does not allege that the woman held the wall in dower (and not allowed)
Mowbray. Again judgment of the count for they have alleged that the woman holds of their inheritance and they are males and this is against common right and they do not affirm that this belongs to them by descent as to say in the count that the woman holds of the endowment of their ancestor whose heirs they are etc. For it is possible that their ancestor never had anything but that they are purchasers.
SHARESHILL, J. Then they would have had another writ but by this writ and count we understand that they are heirs of the woman’s husband and there is no other count or writ in this case.
Mowbray. We tell you that there are several marshes and with respect to all except one no waste committed, as we are ready etc. As to that one we tell you that there is a wall by which this marsh is enclosed against the sea. And in respect of the digging in the wall he traverses; and where they suppose that the sea entered for lack of custody we tell you that the sea is so strong that by a storm it has carried off the soil and undermined the wall so that no-one could prevent it and so it was not carried off by our default. Judgment whether you can assign any wrong in our person etc.
And on that they were at issue as whether it was for lack of guard or not etc.

Citations:

[1343] [Co. Litt. 53b (q)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196928

In a writ of waste
Fulthorpe. Judgment of the count. He has alleged waste in oaks and thorns and thorns cannot be considered waste.
Goderede. What do you say in respect of the oaks?
Fulthorpe. That goes for all.
PASTON, J. That is only against the action for part.
MARTIN, J. The whole writ will abate because it appears that if his writ does not lie in respect of part then his action is false in respect of part.
STRANGEWAYS, J.. If the demandant acknowledges some plea which is contrary to his action in part then all the writ abates but that is not an admission but an allowance in his declaration.
MARTIN, J. His declaration is his own words; so he has admitted that his action does not lie in part.
PASTON, J. If a woman in an action of dower makes claim to one third of a manor and of a common, as to the common her claim is void but as to the remainder her claim is good. Moreover he has assigned waste in that the stumps of the thorns have been destroyed for lack of enclosure.
MARTIN, J. If one brings a writ against two and one dies the whole writ abates.
Brown (one of the clerks) says that this is because the writ is false but in this case the writ is good in itself.
And then as to the part Fulthorpe showed how Alice the claimant had a brother who had survived his father and died; and after his death no waste committed etc.

Citations:

[1431] [Co. Litt. 53a (m)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196952

John Stapleton brought a writ of waste in three villages where it was pleaded that one place which was called a village was a hamlet of one of the other villages named in the writ and they were at issue on this in relation to the whole writ. And by nisi prius before STOWFORD, J. it was found that each was a separate village and he enquired further relating to the waste and it was found that waste had been committed in two villages, namely in such a building and in such a building etc. (with the value of each being given) which had been wasted and destroyed for lack of roofing and also in woods to the value of such etc. to the damages of such. And it was mentioned by SHARESHILL, J. that the damages for the tenements wasted in the third village (which waste by the plea pleaded even though the reverse was found will be considered as not denied) ought not to have been the subject of an enquiry for this enquiry as to waste was not warranted either by statute or by common law for at common law there was not enquiry into waste except where the waste was denied in pleading nor did statute warrant it except by the defendant’s default.
WILLOUGHBY, J. said that there needed to be an enquiry as to waste.
Green. Whatever the law may be we agree to have judgment in accordance with the verdict.
SHARDLOW, J.. Then we are discharged.
WILLOUGHBY, J.. The court therefore adjudges that the plaintiff recovers the places wasted and damages in triplicate as assessed etc. which amount to so much etc. and the plaintiff to be amerced in respect of his complaint in regard to the third village where no waste was found.
Green asked for execution in the lands which he had on the day the plea was pleaded.
STONOR, C.J.. You will first have execution generally on that which he has and if the sheriff returns that he has nothing you will have execution then on the lands which he had on the day the inquest was taken and you will have no more.
And note that Mowbray mentioned to delay judgment first that it had not been found that the tenants had committed the waste (and that it is not in the charge of the court for they should find it whoever had committed the waste); and also in the buildings it was not waste that was found but lack of roofing.
Hilary said that the verdict said that for lack of roofing they had become wasted and destroyed and so we understand that they are wasted.
And it was mentioned by some that if they were unroofed even if the timber was still standing it will be adjudged waste.
And note that a writ of waste brought in Barton where there was traverse that there was no Barton without addition and by inquest taken before INGE, J. the writ was found good and he did not enquire further as to waste. The court remanded for further inquiry for even though the writ was found good the land cannot be lost unless the waste is found etc.

Citations:

[1344] [Viner 438, no. 16]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196929

Waste: where it was found by an inquest where the party pleaded that no waste had been committed that in respect of a kitchen that was burned by a woman who was a stranger without the knowledge of the defendant because they lived elsewhere and to rebuild this kitchen he had cut oaks in a wood and the hedge around the close and that the house is now better than it was before the fire and that he had also cut down and sold a certain number of oaks in a wood around the close and cut down some for repair of buildings and cut down some which were still lying there unsold.
Pole asked for judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff because all that is found will be adjudged waste because of the form of his plea because the defendant ought to have pleaded it specially if he wished to take advantage of it.
WILLOUGHBY, J. The fire is waste for lack of proper keeping.
Thorpe. Recently here in a writ of waste it was found by an inquest taken by default that galleys came to the sea coast and burned down a manor and it was adjudged no waste; so also here.
WILLOUGHBY, J. The party could not have prevented the galleys. But do you believe that if your servant lodges a stranger who burns down the buildings that this will not be adjudged waste? (As if to say, hardly not). So the fire will be adjudged waste and so the kitchen has been wasted but the cutting down of trees for rebuilding is not waste; and as to that which has been cut down but not sold that is waste.
And that which was cut down for repairs (even though that was not specially pleaded) is adjudged no waste: so the court adjudged that the plaintiff recover the place wasted and damages in triplicate.

Citations:

[1345] Wast 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196930

Waste was brought against one and waste was assigned in respect of a chamber because he had allowed it to fall down for lack of roofing and also in certain cottages, certain oak trees and certain ash-trees, certain pear-trees and certain apple-trees cut down and sold.
Newton. As to any waste done except in the chamber, five cottages, ten oak-trees, three pear-trees and four apple-trees, no waste committed, ready etc. (And the others to the contrary). As for the chamber we tell you that it was unroofed at the time of the lease and beforehand and for lack of great timbers was weak and rotten at the time of the lease and after the lease we roofed it as soon as we could and it did not collapse for lack of roofing after the lease. As for one cottage, the great timber was so weak and so rotten at the time of the lease that it could not stand and so it collapsed; judgment whether waste is to be adjudged against them. As to the ten oak-trees we tell you that he leased us a manor together with the things in which he has assigned waste and we cut down the oak-trees to repair certain buildings within the manor and we repaired them with these same oaks. Judgment etc. As to the five ash-trees, they are timber that is cut every ten years and we cut them as housebote and heybote; judgment. As for the pear-trees and apple-trees they were felled by a great wind and then ceased to bear fruit and we took them for fuel and we did not cut them down as you have alleged as we are ready to prove etc.
Cottesmore. As for the chamber, it fell down for lack of roofing after the lease, as we are ready etc.; as for the cottages, the great timber was not rotten at the time of the lease, as we are ready etc.; as for the oak-trees, he has said that he used them for repair of the buildings of the manor but has not specified which.
BABINGTON, C.J. It may be that one was used in one, another in another etc.
Cottesmore. He cut them down for sale and did not put them to the repair of the manor as he claimed, as we are ready etc. As for the ash-trees they were great trees nine years old and suitable as great timber, ready to prove etc.
Newton. They are grown as a crop and we cut them at the proper time for housebote and heybote and they were not large enough to use as timber, ready to prove etc. (But query here as to the form of pleading)
Cottesmore. As to the pear and apple trees he cut them and sold them, as we are ready to prove etc.
So note from this plea that if trees are felled by the wind they belong to the tenant for life and not the reversioner: but query.

Citations:

[1429] [Co. Litt. 53a (e) and Viner 442, no. 17]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196951

Waste assigned in a building and in land dug with pits, namely one acre, and in clay carried off, and in timber cut down, namely oaks and ashes etc. and the defendant pleaded no waste committed and by the nis iprius it was found that the building was burned down by a servant of the defendant by lack of care and the defendant had cut down part of the oaks of which he had assigned waste and from them had made a new building as good as the old one and in the same place as the old and that he had dug clay in old pits for the construction of the house and also to repair old buildings, and also that the defendant had felled forty oaks which were dead and the inquest understood that this was no waste and also that the defendant had felled forty oaks that were still living and had made of them charcoal to burn within the house as required.
Greene. As to the building it has been found that it has been newly built and of the same value as it was before and so no waste can be adjudged for this. It is also found that we dug in old pits that were waste before and also that what we did there was for the improvement of the new building so this cannot be adjudged waste. Also with respect to the dead wood we are discharged because it seemed to the inquest that this cannot be waste. As for the felling of trees for charcoal etc. that is avowable by law.
SHARESHILL, J. It is to be seen whether waste is to be adjudged in respect of the buildings being burned or for the cutting down of the trees from which the building is constructed for he cannot recover the place wasted in respect of both.
Thorpe. You adjudged the building waste and not the trees in the case of a kitchen in the case of Anthony Fisseron (and it was said that the waste will be adjudged in respect of the trees and not of the building).
SHARESHILL, J. There was no enquiry as to how many trees he cut down for the erection of the building.
Mowbray. It was not necessary when the trees were cut for this reason and the building erected etc.

Citations:

[1346] wast 32 [Co. Litt. 53a (k)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196931

Thomas Earl of Arundel brought a writ of waste alleging that his ancestor had leased a manor to the defendant for a term of years and specified waste in a hall, a kitchen, a stable and certain oak trees.
Norton (for the defendant) says that the plaintiff’s ancestor had sold the hall to the prior of Mendham before the lease and by virtue of that sale the prior had dismantled the building after the ancestor’s death and asked for judgment. As to the stable he says that the timber of the same was so rotten in the lifetime of his ancestor that it fell down in his lifetime and asked for judgment; and as to the oaks he says that he had cut them down to erect a new stable and had built it with the same oak trees and asked for judgment. As to the rest he pleads that he had committed no waste, and was ready etc.
Skrene. The first plea with regard to the hall amounts to saying no waste committed; but we are ready to prove that it was.
Norton. In as much as we have alleged that your ancestor sold the hall and by force of that sale it was dismantled in your time and you may have your action in respect of that dismantling and intend to have your action against us and you do not respond to this matter we ask for judgment because we have admitted the fact of the waste in this manner and the dismantling and have justified it by reason of the sale by your ancestor and the prior’s action, and so etc.
Skrene. Again we ask for judgment for another reason in as much as he has admitted the waste committed by a third party in the dismantling of the hall and the tenant could have stopped him doing this and if the third party did it without his consent he could bring an action against him and so the defendant has not answered us and we ask for judgment etc.
HANKFORD, J.. Although the ancestor sold the hail if the purchaser did not dismantle and remove it in his lifetime after the ancestor’s death the hall which was annexed to the free tenement descended to the heir and so no-one was allowed to dismantle it. Cutting a wood or the like are not similar to the dismantling of a building because one can bring a precipe quod reddat for a building and that proves that a building is free tenement and inheritance.
HILL, J. By the ancestor’s sale it was at once unannexed from the free tenement and vested in the purchaser as chattel. So, even if he did not dismantle it in the lifetime of the ancestor, he was able to do so after his death, particularly as his entry into the manor was no wrong to anyone except to the lessee. If the manor had been entailed there would be some colour to the heir’s claim because then the deed of the ancestor who was tenant in tail would not prejudice him; but when the ancestor had fee simple in the manor (the contrary to this not being pleaded here) it seems his plea is good.
COLEPEPER, J. In this case the plaintiff ought to be in no better position than his ancestor and his ancestor would be barred from action by his own deed, and so etc.
Skrene. Then we say that he himself dismantled the same hall and ask for judgment etc.
THIRNING, C.J. Even if he himself dismantled the hall he could have done this in the name of the prior who acquired it and so you have as yet pleaded nothing to charge him with waste, and so etc.
Skrene. We will make things easier for you and say that he dismantled the hall and sold it for his own profit, as we are ready etc.
Norton. In as much as you do not deny the sale made by your ancestor to the prior and by force of that the ownership belonged to him the dismantling was a wrong to the prior and not to you and we ask for judgment.
And then Norton because of what had said said as before and added ‘and that he did not did this for his own profit etc.’
And the others to the contrary.
Skrene. As to the stable his plea is double. One plea is that the wood was rotten in his ancestor’s lifetime, which is a matter of 1aw to bar us from action, because the cause of the waste arose in the ancestor’s time. The other is that it collapsed in fact in the same ancestor’s lifetime.

Citations:

[1409] [Co. Litt. 53a (g)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196949

Waste: the inquest says in respect of one building that he was said to have wasted that at the time the tenements were leased there was no building there but that the lessee had built it and then it was demolished and it was adjudged waste. In respect of the exile of tenants the inquest says that he burdened one with various amercements to the damage of twenty shillings and because he had not abandoned the land as a result the justices took no notice of this.

Citations:

[1324] [Co. Litt. 53a (f)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196925

Waste alleging that he held for a term of years by his lease
Pole. No waste committed etc.
The inquest found that he had committed waste in a bakehouse and a rapine and in a mill to the damage of one mark and that he had felled an ash-tree to repair the mill-stream to the damage of twelve pence.
Pole. We ask for relief in respect of the ash-tree as it was found that it was felled for the purpose of an improvement.
Herle. Do you think that you may knock down my trees to repair what you hold for a term? You may not. So the court adjudges that he recover damages assessed by the inquest three-fold, amounting to 43 shillings.

Citations:

[eyre of Derbyshire, 1330-1] [Co. Litt. 53a (d)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.196926

Citations:

[1920] 1 Ch 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Warborough Investments Ltd v Berry and others ChD 18-Dec-2003
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent after forfeiting the lease. The lease had been held by trustees for a youth centre.
Held: The lease clearly intended that the liability of the trustee’s did not extend beyond those assets they . .
Cited – Associated Deliveries Ltd v Harrison CA 1984
A landlord, having forfeited the lease could not recover for damage to the property caused by third parties before possession was finally given. The election to forfeit was unequivocal, and damages were irrecoverable from the date of service of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.194933

The lease service charge provision, included the following costs: ‘to employ . . professional persons as may be necessary or desirable for the proper . . administration of the Building’.
Held: Those words did not include the costs of counsel and solicitors’ in recovering service charges. The court would require to see a clause in clear and unambiguous terms before a tenant would be held liable to pay as part of a service charge the landlord’s legal costs of suing his co-tenants for recovery of service charges.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1989] 1 EGLR 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Malone, Malone, Goldstein v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Ltd, Stowell, Visortuning Ltd ChD 19-Dec-2003
Houseowners around a square had variously enfranchised their properties, but were now in dispute as to the management of the communal garden.
Held: Though the company was unable to recover the legal costs in the absence of an express power, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.191987

(Obiter) The service of an upwards notice to quit on a head landlord by a head tenant had the same effect on a sub-tenancy as a surrender.

Judges:

Warrington J

Citations:

(1910) 54 SJ 635

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Barrett and others v Morgan HL 27-Jan-2000
The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual . .
Cited – Barrett and Others v Morgan CA 30-Jun-1998
An artificial surrender of a head lease with the sole intention of defeating a sub tenancy was not effective and the subtenant became head tenant in their stead. The collusion defeated the ruse. ‘It is unilateral notices to quit that destroy . .
Cited – Brown v Wilson 1949
A subtenant’s lease is not protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act where the head lease is terminated by the landlord, but if the head tenant determines his own tenancy the sub-tenancy is protected and will be promoted in his stead: ‘the law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.190574

Citations:

[1978] CLY 1813

Cited by:

Applied – Laura Investments v Havering ChD 1992
The land was undeveloped when let to the tenant, who covenanted to build on it. On the rent review, the landlord contended that the rent should be calculated on the developed value, rather than in the condition as originally let.
Held: In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.187391

The covenant for quiet enjoyment cannot be elevated into a warranty that the land is fit to be used for some special purpose.

Citations:

[1872] LR 7 QB 316

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186079

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls V-C

Citations:

[1993] 1 EGLR 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 24-Jul-2003
Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186111

Kekewich J said that the word ‘quietly’ in the covenant for quiet possession in a lease ‘does not mean undisturbed by noise. When a man is quietly in possession it has nothing whatever to do with noise . . ‘Peaceably and quietly’ means without interference – without interruption of the possession.’

Judges:

Kekewich J

Citations:

[1888] 40 ChD 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186077

The plaintiffs were assignees of a lease dating from 1874. The lease contained a covenant by the lessees against underletting the premises or any part thereof without the consent in writing of the landlord. Under the Act, landlords could no longer seek any fine for consent to an assignment. The lease predated the Act.
Held: It was wrong to describe the Act as retrospective. It applied to events taking place after it came into effect. Section 3 does not annul or make void any existing contract; it only provides that in the future, unless there is found an express provision authorizing it, there shall be no right to exact a fine. The power to refuse consent to an assignment except upon the terms of paying a fine cannot fairly be called a vested right or interest.
Buckley LJ spoke of the presumption that legislation ‘speaks only as to the future’

Judges:

Cozens-Hardy MR, Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1911] 2 Ch 1

Statutes:

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1892 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Moon v Durden 1848
In a case of a contract to pay money upon the event of a wager which an Act subsequently declares to be one in respect of which the assured shall not have an insurable interest. If the event has happened before the Act is passed, so that at the . .
Cited – Knight v Lee 1893
An Act which applies to an existing contract so as to affect existing rights must be investigated to see whether the effect is retrospective. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – John Mander Pension Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jul-2015
The pension scheme had been approved, but that approval later withdraw. HMRC issued assessment for the years in which it had been approved. The taxpayer argued that such assessments applied to the date with effect from which the approval is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.184433

Landlord and Tenant – Service Charges – Heating and Hot Water System

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 73 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.634135

A New Lease Claim

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT RP – LON – 00BK –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.626660

Citations:

[2015] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00AG – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.548826

Citations:

[2015] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00AD – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.548830

Citations:

[2014] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00AJ – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.540678

Citations:

[2014] EWLVT MAN – LV – SVC – 00CZ – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.540706

Citations:

[2014] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00BK – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.540694

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 533

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pointon York Group Plc v Poulton CA 13-Jul-2006
The lease included a right to use seven designated parking spaces. The parties disputed whether parking space could be occupied in such a way as to be given protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Held: A parking space is an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.472574

There is no presumption in construing a lease that the service charge provisions will enable the landlord to recover all of his expenditure.

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 EGLR 53

Cited by:

Cited – Craighead v Homes for Islington Ltd and Another UTLC 24-Feb-2010
UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether landlord’s source of funding relevant to leaseholders’ liabilities – whether ‘blanket policy’ against discretionary relief relevant to whether service charge . .
Cited – Campbell v Daejan Properties Ltd CA 20-Nov-2012
The tenant appealed against an order requiring the amendment of what was found to be an obvious error in the lease as to the responsibility of the lessor to make repairs to certain walls and rooves, and the apportionment of liability for payment of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.471574

A freeholder with an order for possession is entitled to enforce that order in its favour without issuing and enforcing a writ of possession.

Citations:

[1955] 1 QB 558, [1955] 1 All ER 785

Cited by:

Cited – Pritchard and Others v Teitelbaum and Others ChD 20-Apr-2011
The claimants sought orders allowing them to re-enter the tenanted properties after eviction in order to allow them recover their possessions left behind. Proceedings for recovery of possession had continued over several years.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.444769

An agreement by a landlord in a periodic tenancy not to serve notice to quit for three years unless it required the premises for its own use was valid.
Scott LJ said: ‘The phrase ‘subject-matter of the lease’ was, as we know, substituted for the ancient expression ‘touching and concerning the land’. Professor Cheshire’s elucidation of its meaning on pp.214-5 of the 5th ed. of his book on ‘Modern Real Property’, in my respectful opinion, supplies the true test. ‘If a simple test’, he says, ‘is desired for ascertaining into which category a covenant falls, it is suggested that the proper inquiry should be whether the covenant affects either the landlord qua landlord or the tenant qua tenant. A covenant may very well have reference to the land, but, unless it is reasonably incidental to the relation of landlord and tenant, it cannot be said to touch and concern the land so as to be capable of running therewith or with the reversion. Tested by this principle the following covenants have been held to touch and concern the land’. Of the covenants by the tenant running with the land that ‘to pay rent or taxes’ and ‘not to assign or underlet’, and by the landlord running with the reversion, ‘to renew the lease’ are the most apposite of the instances which he quotes from decided cases.’

Judges:

Scott LJ

Citations:

[1948] 2 KB 1

Cited by:

Cited – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448473

Greer J discussed the effect in law of the division and assignment of a tenanted property: ‘Where the leased property has been physically divided amongst two or more assignees it is clear that the obligations of the lease, so far as they affect the assignees, become separate, and each of the assignees is liable, while he is assignee, to perform the covenants so far as they affect his divided part of the leased property.’
After referring to the Holloway case, Greer J said: ‘Where leased land is physically divided it is possible to say that the covenant imposed by law through privity of estate on the assignee is confined to the part of the land in respect of which there is privity of estate between the assignee and the landlord, but where the land is not physically divided, it is not possible to split the covenant into two covenants capable of enforcement.’

Judges:

Greer J

Citations:

[1922] 1 KB 469

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Considered – Dooner v Odlum 1914
(Kings Bench Division – Ireland) Dodd J said: ‘The rent, according to the authorities I have cited, is divisible. There is absolutely no evidence and no presumption upon which to found an inference that she holds an undivided share in the lands . .
Considered – Dooner v Odlum 2-Jan-1914
(Court of Appeal – Ireland) The court affirmed the decision in the King’s Bench.
Cherry LCJ said: ‘The law is, I think, well settled that where a lessee of demised premises assigns portion of these premises to a stranger, the assignee is liable . .
Cited – Holloway And Another v Berkeley 1826
The court considered the law applicable to heriots, an incident of manorial tenures such as copyhold. Bayley J said that where a tenement is subdivided ‘each tenant holds his share in severalty.’ . .

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448993

The assignee of part of the property comprised in the lease had paid the whole rent in order to stave off a threatened distress. He then sued the assignee of the other part for a contribution.
Held: He succeeded.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that on the severance of the term occasioned by the assignment the landlord ceased to be in a position to sue for the whole rent and could only sue the tenants of the severed parts for a proportion of the rent. The Court (obiter) referred to authority which supported the proposition and then referred to the observation of Tindal CJ in Curtis v Spitty and ‘the unquestionable fact’ that the assignment of part of the land does not affect the landlord’s right to distrain on that part for the rent of the whole.

Citations:

[1939] 2 KB 81

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as . .
Cited – Lester v Ridd CA 1990
A farm with 23 acres was let in 1902. The term passed to Alfred and William Burge, a father and son farming in partnership. On the later dissolution of the partnership, the house and five acres of land were assigned to Alfred and the remaining 18 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448994

A tenant in the house let it to K at a fixed rent, with a lease at the same rent ‘at any period he may feel disposed’ and more not to molest or disturb him or raise his rent after Kusel had spent money to improve the house. K spent the money and now sought specific performance of the agreement as against the landlord’s personal representative. The court at first instance had held that he was entitled to an underlease of his landlord’s term less one day.
Held: The landlord’s appeal failed. The agreement meant that he should be granted a lease for the residue of his landlord’s term less on day, if he should so long live.

Judges:

Sir George Jessel MR

Citations:

(1879) 11 Ch D 129

Cited by:

Cited – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448474

Citations:

[2002] EWLVT 281

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.439478

The plaintiff had let a furnished house to the defendant for a year. Fom the outset the plaintiff was under a statutory obligation to paint the outside of the house during that year. In default, the statutory authority was empowered to do the work. The plaintiff had forgotten that the year of the lease was the year of the painting. She did the painting and the defendant and her family had to leave the house for about a fortnight. The defendant trenant obtained judgment for damages on her counterclaim for breach of an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Held: A landlord may be in breach of covenant notwithstanding that he has acted in performance of a statutory obligation. The landlord might have protected herself by a covenant for the purpose in the lease. A covenant for quiet enjoyment is implied in favour of the lessee but a covenant for good title (or good right to confer possession) is not. Lord Alverstone, the Chief Justice, explained the nature of a landlord’s implied covenant for quiet enjoyment: ‘Apart from authority it would certainly seem, on principle and in common sense, that when one person agrees to give possession of his house for a time to another, that ought to carry with it an agreement that he, the landlord, and those claiming through him, will not dispossess the tenant during that time. Therefore, unless there is some special meaning attached to the word ‘demise’, the good sense of the thing would seem to be that, upon an agreement to let, a covenant or contract was to be implied that the landlord and those claiming under him would not disturb the possession of the tenant. Unless driven to do so by authority, I should hesitate a long time before drawing any distinction in that respect between the words ‘agree to let’ and ‘demise”.

Judges:

Lord Alverstone CJ

Citations:

[1902] 2 KB 351

Cited by:

Cited – Kenny v Preen 15-Oct-1962
A landlord’s threats to evict the tenant, accompanied by repeated shouting and knocking on her door, was held to be a breach of his covenant for quiet enjoyment. The court explained that ‘the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.442747

There had been an assignment of a lease of coal mines but at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff, the coals had already been substantially worked out. The grantor did not have title in the coals and was in breach of the covenant of title. The plaintiff bought the land and built houses upon it. The houses were damaged by subsidence caused by the underground mining.
Held: There had been no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment which had been given by the vendor.
Cleasby B said: ‘It seems to me impossible to say that there is a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment by reason of the subsidence of the house in consequence of the previous removal of the coal. This subsidence of the house was a necessary consequence of the condition of the property bought by the plaintiff.’
Bramwell B took the view that a breach of covenant for title was a once for all breach and completed at the time when the assignment was executed and hence would have been statute-barred. Kelly CB differed, held that it was a continuous breach. He drew a distinction between a covenant for title and a covenant for quiet enjoyment.

Judges:

Kelly CB, Cleasby, Bramwell BB

Citations:

(1874) LR 9 Ex 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.442749

Citations:

[2004] EWLVT 491

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.439288

Citations:

[2002] EWLVT 153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.439412

Citations:

[2001] EWLVT 81

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.439492

Citations:

[2004] EWLVT 283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.439281

Citations:

[2004] EWLVT 271

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.439275

Citations:

[2007] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00AH – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.437662

Citations:

[2007] EWLVT LON – LV – FFT – 00AG – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.437670

The court considered service of a notice at a lessee’s last known address. The landlord’s notice exercising its right under the break clause was sent to an address which ‘was no longer in existence; the building had been demolished; and the envelope containing the notice was returned by the Post Office to [the landlord].’ The landlord did not know of this.
Held: It was good service.

Citations:

[1975] 1 EGLR 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Blunden v Frogmore Investments Ltd CA 30-Apr-2002
The tenant had a lease of business premises. The premises were damaged in a terrorist attack, and the landlord served a notice terminating the lease. The lease gave the right to the landlord to determine the lease if the property was incapable of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182299

The plaintiff’s lessor had leased a house in London to the defendant for seven years, and, after the seven expired, had accepted a quarter’s rent, whereby a tenancy at will was created; and it was proved by an ancient city-book in French (called liber albua) that by the custom of the City of London, every tenant at will of above 40s. per annum, in the city, ought to give or have half a years warning; and if under 40s. a quarter’s warning, and the lessor of the plaintiff had given no such warning (the house being about 40s. per annum) to the defendant before the ejectment brought.
It was urged for the plaintiff, that this custom doth not alter the nature of an estate at will, as to the determination of it, for then instead of being an estate at will, it would become a fixed estate for half a year, andc. but the meaning is, that if the landlord ousts his tenant without such warning, he may have his remedy upon the custom, and to that opinion Holt inclined.

Citations:

[1724] EngR 303, (1724) Comb 383, (1724) 90 ER 543 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC 9-Nov-2011
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.389407

The lessor brought debt against the assignee of the moiety of the term for the moiety of the rent reserved on the lease, arid it was resolved by the whole Court, that the action well lay.

Citations:

[1729] EngR 108, (1729) T Jones 104, (1729) 84 ER 1169 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Lester v Ridd CA 1990
A farm with 23 acres was let in 1902. The term passed to Alfred and William Burge, a father and son farming in partnership. On the later dissolution of the partnership, the house and five acres of land were assigned to Alfred and the remaining 18 . .
Cited – Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.388056

If A, tenant for life subject to forfeiture, remainder over to B., lease to C. for a term, and afterwards apprehending that he has forfeited, acquiesce in B.’s claiming and receiving the rent from C., his executor may, on shewing that be acquiesced under a false apprehension recover from C. the amount of the rent erroneously paid to B.

Citations:

[1798] EngR 237, (1798) 1 Bos and Pul 326, (1798) 126 ER 930 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Doe D Lord v Crago CCP 12-May-1848
The lease had been granted for 99 years or until the earlier death of the last of three people. The assignee of the lease stayed in possession long after the death of such survivor, paying the rent as reserved. He said that the lessor had known of . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.348987

The landlord sued an assignee of half the land for half the rent. He defended on the ground that he was not liable for any part of the rent because both privity of contract and privity of estate remained in the original tenant.
Held: The assignee had privity of estate in half the land, which was enough to make him liable to pay half the rent.

Citations:

[1793] EngR 433, (1793) 2 Lev 231, (1793) 83 ER 532 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.357020

The landlord brought an action in covenant against an assignee of the term claiming rent. The assignee pleaded (amongst other things) that he had been evicted from half the land by title paramount. The question for the court was whether, in those circumstances, the rent was apportionable so as to relieve the assignee from liability for half the rent.
Held: It was. Lord Ellenborough CJ said that where the action was brought upon the original contract against the original tenant, the rent was not apportionable. After referring to the authorities, he said: ‘So covenant will lie against the assignee of part of an estate for not repairing his part; ‘for it is dividable, and follows the land,’ with which the defendant as assignee is chargeable by the common law, or by the stat. 32 H. 8, c. 37. Congham v. King, Cro. Car. 222. Upon the whole, therefore, we think that the condition of this assignee is in point of law different from that of a lessee chargeable on the privity of contract; and being chargeable on the privity of estate, and in respect of the land, his rent is upon principle apportionable as the rent of a lessee is, or as his rent would be in an action of debt or replevin.’

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough CJ

Citations:

[1802] EngR 271, (1802) 2 East 575, (1802) 102 ER 490

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

Cited – Congham v King 1631
An action in covenant would lie against an assignee of part of the land comprised in a lease for not repairing his part. Such a covenant was divisible and followed the land. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as . .
Cited – Lester v Ridd CA 1990
A farm with 23 acres was let in 1902. The term passed to Alfred and William Burge, a father and son farming in partnership. On the later dissolution of the partnership, the house and five acres of land were assigned to Alfred and the remaining 18 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.345088

The court considered the law applicable to heriots, an incident of manorial tenures such as copyhold. Bayley J said that where a tenement is subdivided ‘each tenant holds his share in severalty.’

Judges:

Bayley J

Citations:

[1826] EngR 293, (1826) 6 B and C 2, (1826) 108 ER 353

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – United Dairies Ltd v Public Trustee 1922
Greer J discussed the effect in law of the division and assignment of a tenanted property: ‘Where the leased property has been physically divided amongst two or more assignees it is clear that the obligations of the lease, so far as they affect the . .
Cited – Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd CA 2-Nov-2011
The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.325057

The tenant took premises for a year, occupied them and paid rent for a quarter and then left. The landlord re-let the premises a few weeks later, at a slightly lower rent, and they remained let for some months, but they were empty for the last two months of the original term of a year. The landlord sought to recover the loss of rent under the original lease, including both the amount by which the rent was less under the later lettings, and the whole rent for the later period when the premises were vacant, but she failed.
Held: Putting in another tenant amounted either to accepting a surrender or to evicting the tenant, so as to put an end to the right to claim the rent. Sergeant Vaughan had argued that the lettings were for the tenant’s account. Only Gaselee J referred to that argument: ‘If the plaintiff had given the defendant notice, that, if he would not occupy the apartments himself, she would let them to another tenant, on his account, the case would have been different.’

Judges:

Best CJ, Park J, Burrough J and Gaselee J

Citations:

[1826] EngR 894, (1826) 2 Car and P 268, (1826) 172 ER 121, (1826) 11 Moore CP

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

See Also – Walls v Atcheson 24-Apr-1826
. .
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

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.325658

Charles Bickerstaff being possessed of a long term of years in certain woodlands and eopces in Cobham, in the county of Kent, demis’d, sett, and to farm lett the same for six years, parce1 of his term to the plaintiff, under a rent and other reservations, and covenanted ; the plaintiff keeping and performing the agreements of his part to be kept and performed.

Citations:

[1823] EngR 285, (1823) Vaugh 118, (1823) 124 ER 997

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.328325

On the rent review of a large factory of which the only potential occupier was the tenant in question, one should assume a hypothetical landlord and hypothetical willing tenant so that the rental levels were not affected by one or both parties being in a monopoly position. A hypothetical willing seller and a hypothetical willing buyer can walk away from the transaction if a proper price is not being agreed.

Judges:

Donaldson J

Citations:

(1977) 36 P and C R 185

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Clay CA 1914
The court considered the market value of a private residence. The evidence was that its value to persons wishing to use it as a private residence was 750 pounds. However, the house adjoined a nurses’ home the trustees of which wanted to extend their . .

Cited by:

Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.278773

Section 9(1A) of the 1967 Act makes no express reference to a ‘willing buyer’, but it is implied by the assumption of a sale in the ‘open market’.

Judges:

Fox LJ

Citations:

[1987] 1 EGLR 132

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 9(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.278772

The court considered the extent of its ability to insert conditions into caravan site agreements under the 1960 Act. The site licence contained two relevant conditions. One required that no caravan should be occupied between November 1 and March 19. The second required that all caravans should be removed prior to 1 November and none placed before March 20. Section 5(1) permitted conditions:
‘(a) for restricting the occasions on which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation . .
(d) for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenity of the land, including the planting and replanting thereof with trees and bushes.’
Held: Applying authority, the court held that section 5 did not permit conditions which were imposed for purely planning reasons. The condition requiring removal could not be justified under either section 5(1)(a) or (d). It was imposed as a planning consideration.

Citations:

[1990] 1 EGLR 202

Statutes:

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brightlingsea Haven Ltd and Another v Morris and others QBD 30-Oct-2008
The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.277382

Citations:

[1985] 1 EGLR 203

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.278771

Mr Monk and Mrs Powell held a tenancy of the council in their joint names. They fell out and Mrs Powell gave the contractual four week notice. Mr Monk objected that this should not have allowed the council to end the tenancy.
Held: The notice had been effective, and possession was granted against Mr Monk.

Judges:

Slade, Nicholls and Bingham LJJ

Citations:

(1990) 61 P and CR 414

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Binding – Greenwich London Borough Council v McGrady CA 1982
A notice to quit given by one of two joint tenants without the consent of the other was effective to determine the periodic tenancy to which it related.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘In my judgment, it is clear law that, if there is to be a . .
Cited – Howson v Buxton CA 1928
After one tenancy the former tenant as landlord’s representative became joint tenants with the new tenant who provided the funds and bought out the former tenants compensation rights. The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, and the new . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.272269

The court considered the case where a tenant sublet the premises and the subtenant unlawfully retained possession following the termination of both tenancies.
Held: The tenant, although himself out of possession, had not given – or restored – possession to the landlord, and he was liable to pay mesne profits. Blackburn J said: ‘The question is, where there is a tenancy . . whether there is an implied contract that the tenant shall not only go out of possession, but restore the possession to the landlord . . I think that there is such an implied contact.’

Judges:

Blackburn J

Citations:

(1869) LR 4 QB 170

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269757

A former tenant who wrongfully remains in possession after the end of an ordinary tenancy ceases to be liable for mesne profits when he gives up possession, irrespective of notice.

Citations:

[1897] 2 QB 66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.269756

The claimant challenged the council’s policy for allocating council houses. The policy would allocate applicants to a class, and once a property was available to that class, it was given to the person longest on the list within that class.

Judges:

Nicholas Blake QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2332 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 8167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Ahmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.259847

LT SERVICE CHARGES – reasonableness – professional fees – whether capable of inclusion in service charge under terms of lease – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20C – LVT costs disallowed – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2004] EWLands LRX – 61 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.225820

Judges:

Judge Benjamin Nolan QC

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2750 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.655671

Fair Rent

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AU –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.647847

(Leasehold) Disputes (Management) – Service Charges

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT RP – BIR – 47UC –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.647865

(Leasehold) Disputes (Management) – Service Charges

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT RP – CAM – 00MF –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.647943

(Leasehold) Disputes (Management) – Service Charges

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AM –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.647926

(Leasehold) Disputes (Management) – Service Charges

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT RP – CAM – 22UN –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.647861

Citations:

[2014] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00BK – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540696

Citations:

[2014] EWLVT LON – LV – AOM – 00AM – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540704

Citations:

[2014] EWLVT CHI – LV – SVC – 45UE – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540645

Citations:

[2014] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00AJ – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540701