Category: Landlord and Tenant

Buck v Howarth: 1947

A man, for no consideration, gave another permission to stay in a cottage until he died.
Held: It was not a lease but only a tenancy at will.

Citations:

(1947) 1 ABR 344

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.259540

Doe dem Warner v Browne: 1807

The parties agreed a lease at a rent of andpound;40 per annum. The landlord was not to raise the rent nor turn out the tenant ‘so long as the rent is duly paid quarterly, and he does not expose to sale or sell any article that may be injurious to W Warner in his business.’ The tenant paid his rent and committed no breach of covenant. The landlord gave six months’ notice.
Held: The notice was good. At common law a tenancy for life is an estate of freehold, and can only be created by deed and not by parol.
It would be ‘inconsistent with, and repugnant to’ a ‘tenancy from year to year’ that ‘it should not be determinable at the pleasure of either party giving the regular notice’.
Lord Ellenborough CJ said: ‘What estate the defendant was contended to have? And whether he were not in this dilemma; that either his estate might enure for life, at his option; and then according to Lord Coke such an estate would, in legal contemplation, be an estate for life; which could not be created by parol: or if not for life, being for no assignable period, it must operate as a tenancy from year to year; in which case it would be inconsistent with, and repugnant to the nature of such an estate, that it should not be determinable at the pleasure of either party giving the regular notice.’
Lawrence J said: ‘If this interest be not determinable so long as the tenant complies with the terms of the agreement, it would operate as an estate for life; which can only be created by deed.
The notion of a tenancy from year to year, the lessor binding himself not to give notice to quit, which was once thrown out by Lord Mansfield, has been long exploded.’

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough CJ, Lawrence J

Citations:

(1807) 8 East 165, [1807] EngR 124, (1807) 103 ER 305

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Binions v Evans CA 27-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other . .
Applied – In re Midland Railway Co’s Agreement, Charles Clay and Sons Ltd v British Railways Board CA 1971
The lease agreement created a term for six months from 10 June 1920 and was to continue from half year to half year until determined. It was to be determined by three months’ written notice given by either party to the other provided that the . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body and Others HL 16-Jul-1992
The parties signed a memorandum of agreement to let a strip of land from 1930 until determined as provided, but the only provision was that the lease would continue until the land was needed for road widening and two months’ notice was given. The . .
See Also – Browne v Warner 23-Jul-1807
. .
See Also – Browne v Warner 25-Jan-1808
. .
Cited – Joseph v Nettleton Road Housing Co-Operative Ltd CA 16-Mar-2010
The respondent was a mutual housing co-operative, and the claimant its tenant. The tenant kept a dog in the premises without the consent of the other tenants in breach of the terms of the lease. A notice to quit was served on him. His tenancy was . .
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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.259538

Birmingham Joint Stock Co v Lea: 1877

The court considered whether a covenant in a lease survived its extinction: ‘though the old under-lease was gone it was clearly part of the arrangement that the defendant should remain subject to the covenant and that accordingly he remained bound by it in equity.’

Citations:

(1877) 36 LT 843

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Golden Lion Hotel v Carter 1965
A lease of a plot of land fronting a road contained a covenant by the lessor, who was also the owner of land with a hotel on the opposite side of the road, not to build on the hotel site except to a specified extent. Subsequently, the lessee . .
Cited – Wall v Collins and Another CA 17-May-2007
Properties, when leasehold, had acquired rights of way by prescription over neighbouring land. The freehold interests were acquired, and the claimant now appealed a decision that the right of way acquired under his lease had disappeared.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.252421

Braddon Towers Ltd v International Stores Ltd: 1987

Slade J considered the availability of an order for specific performance of a positive covenant: ‘Whether or not this may be properly described as a rule of law, I do not doubt that for many years practitioners have advised their clients that it is the settled and invariable practice of this court never to grant mandatory injunctions requiring persons to carry on business.’

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[1987] 1 EGLR 209

Cited by:

Cited – Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores HL 21-May-1997
The tenants of a unit on a large shopping centre found the business losing money, and closed it in contravention of a ‘keep open’ clause in the lease. They now appealed from a mandatory injunction requiring them to keep the store open.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.247889

Hoggett v Hoggett and Wallis: 1979

An act of surrender of a lease by one of two joint tenants was ineffective where the other joint tenant remained living in the property.

Citations:

[1979] 39 PandCR 67

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hoggett v Hoggett CA 1980
The court considered whether there had been an effective surrender of a property at law.
Held: Where a person claims to have been in occupation of land at law, but was not physically present, it was necessary to show that his occupation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.245887

Famous Army Stores v Meehan: 1993

Judges:

Steyn J

Citations:

[1993] 1 EGLR 73

Cited by:

Disapproved – Connaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd CA 17-Sep-1993
The lease provided the tenant would pay the rent ‘without any deduction’.
Held: The words ‘without any deductions’ in a lease were ambiguous and were insufficient to exclude the tenant’s right to claim a set off. Clear words are needed before . .
Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.242650

Webb and Barrett v London Borough of Barnet: CA 1988

The authority resisted an application by the tenant to buy the property let as a council dwelling saying that the tenant was using it for mixed residential and business purposes. The tenant said that the business use had finished, and that the tenancy had become secure.
Held: The court noted the change in definitions of what constituted being ‘let as a separate dwelling’ in the 1965 Act. The premises were not let as a separate dwelling.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

(1988) 21 HLR 228

Statutes:

Rent Act 1965, Rent Act 1957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pulleng v Curran CA 1980
The question was whether under the 1977 Act the tenant occupied the premises for residential purposes. The landlord said that a business was also conducted from them.
Held: The tenant had failed to establish that the business use had ceased. . .
Cited – Cheryl Investments v Saldanha CA 1978
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business.
Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Cited – Tan and Another v Sitkowski CA 1-Feb-2007
The tenant claimed Rent Act protection for his tenancy. He had been rehoused and began his tenancy in 1970 with the ground floor used as a shop, and the first floor as living accomodation. He later abandoned the business use. He appealed a finding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.242247

Whiteminster Estates Ltd v Hodges Menswear Ltd: 1974

The landlords carried on business as men’s outfitters. They also owned the shop next door which had been let as a cafe. The tenant applied for consent to assign the lease to another men’s outfitter, and the landlord refused on the ground that the proposed assignee would be a direct competitor.
Held: The landlord’s fear of an adverse effect on their trade was one that could reasonably be held: ‘Once it was accepted, as now it must be, that a landlord was entitled to take into account his own interests as well as his interests as a landlord, that was really an end of the matter. It was sufficient that the landlord could reasonably anticipate that the opening of the new shop would prejudice his trade.’

Judges:

Pennycuick V-C

Citations:

[1974] EGD 324

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD 8-Jun-2004
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .
Cited – Sargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD 8-Jun-2004
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .
Cited – Sportoffer Ltd v Erewash Borough Council ChD 17-Mar-1999
The landlords were the local authority, and operated a municipal leisure centre. The tenants were the tenants of a squash club and applied for consent to a change of use to use as a leisure centre. The landlords objected on the ground that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.199280

Duncliffe v Caefelin Properties Ltd: ChD 1989

The defendants had taken an assignment of the reversion of a flat held on a long lease. The assignors had gone into liquidation when in prolonged breach of the lessor’s repairing covenant. The lessee asserted that the effect of s.142 on an assignment was to transfer the burden of past as well as future breaches of the lessor’s covenants.
Held: ‘I have formed the conclusion, albeit with some reluctance because of the unhappy state that the plaintiff finds herself in, that what s.142 is talking about is the obligation arising under the lease to observe and perform the repairing covenant as a repairing covenant running with the land and binding the assignee of the reversion. I would find it very hard indeed to construe ‘obligation’ as it is used in this section as meaning the consequences of a past breach prior to the assignee becoming entitled to the reversion . . . This is of course a matter of first impression on the construction of the statute.’

Judges:

Garland J

Citations:

[1989] 2 EGLR 38

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v Muscat CA 10-Jul-2003
The tenant was sued by his landlord for arrears of rent, but sought an equitable set-off for damages for disrepair accruing under the previous landlord.
Held: If the entitlement to recover arrears of rent passes from assignor to assignee, and . .
Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.185860

Freeman v Hambrook: 1947

Citations:

[1947] LR 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.570353

Harlow Development Corporation v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd: 1973

The parties to a lease discussed the terms upon which the landlord would carry out substantial improvement works on the demised property in turn for an increase in rent. The parties had forgotten than the tenant had an option to acquire a long lease at a fixed price, the effect of which would be to remove the landlord’s entitlement to future rent.
The landlord sought to rectify.
Held: The claim failed because the parties had no intention as regards the option. He also pointed out that there would have been several possibilities if the question had been drawn to the parties’ attention at the time of the contract. The objectively ascertainable intention of the parties was that the Bank would retain such rights as it had.

Judges:

Walton J

Citations:

(1973) 226 EG 1960.

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd and Others CA 12-Feb-2013
The court was asked whether Lloyds TSB Bank Plc was entitled to rectify the terms of a compromise embodied in the schedule to a Tomlin order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.558191

Smith v Seghill Overseers: 1875

The colliery owned 346 cottages which it kept for occupation by the colliers according to the discretion of the owners, who generall gave preference to married workers. A collier who was married but for whom a cottage could not be found was provided with an additional allowance for rent for alternative accomodation. It was not absolutely necessary for their work that an collier should occupy one of the cottages. Norent was paid, and but for the allowance there was no other variation in their terms. The terms of employment were on one week’s notice and no separate or additional notice was given to terminate the occupation when the employment terminated. Rates were paid by the owners without any accounting with the workers.
Held: The appellant colliers were occupiers of the cottages, and were entitled to have their m=names inserted in the rate book. Where a person who is in fact a servant is in part remunerated for his services by being allowed to occupy a house, then he is prima facie a tenant.
Mellor J said: ‘The residence must be ancillary and necessary to the performance of the servants duties; and unless he is required for that purpose to reside in the house, and not merely as an arbitrary regulation on the part of the master, I do not think he is prevented from occupying as a tenant. Then it appears that the appellants and other workmen are only entitled to occupy the houses during the time of their service at the colliery ; the occupation terminates at the time the service terminates. Still, appellants are tenants, though not tenants for any fixed time. They occupy as tenants at will as long as they reside in the houses by the arrangement between themselves and their masters. Then it appears that if there was no house for a married workmen, he had an allowance for house rent, but if there was a house empty, and the workman would not come into it, he had no allowance. An inference might possibly be drawn from this, that, as he was bound to reside if a house was offered him, upon pain of forfeiting his allowance, he resided in it upon compulsion, and therefore his occupation was that of a servant ; but I cannot assent to this, and in my opinion, those workmen who did reside in the houses resided in the character of tenants.’

Judges:

Mellor J

Citations:

(1875) LR 10 QB 422, 44 LJMC 114, 32 LT 859, 40 JP 228, 23 WR 745

Landlord and Tenant, Rating, Employment

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.536773

MacFarlane v Falfield Investments Ltd: SCS 1998

The practice had grown up of granting new agricultural tenancies to limited partnerships constituted under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 in which the landlord or his nominee was the limited partner and the tenants of the farm were the general partners. Dissolution of a limited partnership by one of the partners giving notice to the others determines the partnership at the date when the notice takes effect. The remaining partners cannot carry on the business of the firm, as it has been dissolved: J Bennett Miller, The Law of Partnership in Scotland (2nd ed), p 460. So when the partnership was dissolved there ceased to be anyone who could claim to be the tenant under the tenancy: see Inland Revenue v Graham’s Trustees 1971 SC (HL) 1, 20, per Lord Reid; Gill, The Law of Agricultural Holdings in Scotland (3rdth ed), para 1.13. As the legislation gave tenants what in practice amounted to indefinite security of tenure, landlords were reluctant to let agricultural land on any other basis. The practice of letting to limited partnerships became widespread.
Held: Lord President Rodger said 34 that it was not for the court to second guess those who were charged with policy on that matter and to strike down schemes simply on the basis of its uninstructed view of what might be contrary to the public interest in good husbandry.

Judges:

Lord President Rodger

Citations:

1998 SC 14

Cited by:

Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.535109

Wilchick v Marks and Silverstone: KBD 1934

The plaintiff was injured by a shutter falling from a house next to the highway. The house belonged to the owners who were large property owners but was let to a tenant on a weekly tenancy under rent control to a tailor in a small way of business. There was no contractual liability either on the landlord or the tenant to repair, although the landlord had reserved the right to enter the property and do repairs if they thought fit. The plaintiff brought an action against the landlord and the tenant.
Held: The claim succeeded against both.
Goddard J said: ‘What is the principle that determines the liability for nuisance; why is it that prima facie it is the occupier who is liable? In Laugher v Pointer 5 B and C 547, 576; Abbott CJ said: ‘I have the control and management of all that belongs to my land or my house; and it is my fault if I do not so exercise my authority as to prevent injury to another.” and ‘If a landlord lets premises on which he knows that a nuisance exists but takes a covenant from his tenant to put or keep them in repair, no liability remains in him . . but there is no case which precisely covers the present facts, where, neither landlord nor tenant being under covenant to repair, the former reserves the right to enter and do necessary repairs and, knowing that repairs are necessary, fails to do them . . A property owner knows that his house if not repaired must at some time get into a dangerous state: he lets it to a tenant and puts him under no obligation to keep it repaired: it may be the tenant is one who from lack of means could not do any repairs. The landlord has expressly reserved to himself the right to enter and do necessary repairs: why then should he be under no duty to make it safe for passers by when he knows that the property is dangerous? The proximity is there: he has the right to enter and remedy a known danger. Is the injured person to be left in such a case only to a remedy against the tenant, who in this sort of tenancy, which commonly obtains only with regard to small properties, is probably in quite humble circumstances?’

Citations:

[1934] 2 KB 56

Citing:

Cited – Laugher v Pointer 1826
The owner of a carriage hired a pair of horses for a day to draw the carriage. The owner of the horses also provided the driver, by whose negligence a horse belonging to a third party was injured. It appears that the majority of the court held that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Nuisance, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.515234

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.

Citations:

(1631) Cro Car 221

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 – Stevenson v Lambard 6-Jul-1802
The landlord brought an action in covenant against an assignee of the term claiming rent. The assignee pleaded (amongst other things) that he had been evicted from half the land by title paramount. The question for the court was whether, in those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.448990

Carruthers v Irvine: 1717

A lease was granted expressed to be ‘perpetually and continually as long as the grass groweth up and the water runneth down’. The grantor died and his heir sought to remove the tenant on the ground that the lease did not say when it was to come to an end.
Held: His claim failed because the court found that ‘by the meaning of [the] parties the contract was intended to be a perpetual right to the tenant and his successors’. This did not meet the requirements of the 1449 Act, and it was admitted that the tenant would not have been able to enjoy that right in a question with a singular successor of the grantor . . But the personal right against the heir under the contract was not affected.

Citations:

1717 Mor 15195

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.

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.448476

Crighton v Lord Air: 1631

The grant of a lease was to the tenant and his heirs and successors for five years and after that a further five years and then five years for ever. The argument that the lease was a nullity because it did not say when it was to come to an end was repelled. It was noted that the grantor might have objected on this ground in question with a singular successor of the grantee. But it was held that he could not do so in a question with the grantee’s heirs, as he had bound himself by the words of the grant never to remove the grantee’s heirs.

Citations:

1631 Mor 11182

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.

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.448477

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 jointly or as tenant in common, in the ordinary sense of the term, with others. In one sense, of course, it may be contended that a number of tenants, each holding a divided portion and each contributing to the entire rent, are tenants in common . . But the authorities recognize a divided share, and the inference here is overwhelming that it is a divided share that the defendant holds.’

Judges:

Dodd J

Citations:

[1914] 2 Ir R 411

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Considered – 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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.448991

Redpath v White: 1737

The court considered the status of a lease of indefinte term.

Citations:

1737 Mor 15196

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.

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.448479

The Bishop of Bath’s Case: CCP 1572

A Lease was made to A and B for 60 years, with a clause of re-entry immediately after the deaths of A and B and of the longer liver of them within the term. After the death of A within the term another lease of the same lands was made to C habendum et occupandum, when the former lease shall determine, after, or by the death, surrender or forfeiture, of the said B.
Held: the second lease shall commence either after the re-entry by force of the proviso, if any be, and if none, then after the determination and end of the first term by any of the other means.
That every lease for years should have a certain beginning, is to be intended when it is to take effect in interest or possession.
That the continuance of a lease for years ought to be certain, is to be intended either when the term is certain by express numbering of years, or by reference to certainty, or by reducing it to certainty by matter ex post facto, or by construction of law by express limitation.
When a lease for years shall be made good by reference, the reference ought to be to a thing which has express certainty at the time of the lease made, and not to a possible or casual certainty.
A demise for the term of one year, and so from one year for a year, as long as both parties shall please, is but a lease for three years at most. If a lease be made for years, it is a good lease for two years.
A void limitation of the commencement of a lease for years, and no limitation, is all one.
In construction of law on the commencement of leases, the construction shall be the strongest against the lessor, and most beneficially for the lessee. If a man makes a lease for years, to commence after the surrender, forfeiture, determination, or end, of a former lease, the lessee shall not have election, but whichever event shall first happen, on the happening of it the second lease, which before consisted in interesse termini, shall begin in possession.

Citations:

[1572] EngR 386, (1572-1616) 6 Co Rep 34, (1572) 77 ER 303

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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.432352

Saunders’s Case: CCP 1572

If a lease of land be made for life, or for years, in part of which there is a mine open, the lessee may dig in it.
If the mine were not open at the time of the lease made, the lessee cannot open it.
If a man hath mines hid within his land, and leases his land and all mines therein, the lessee may dig for them.
If land be leased in which there is a hidden mine, and the lessee opens it, and then assigns over his estate, the assignee cannot dig in it.
If a lessee assigns his term with an exception of the profits of the mines, or the mines themselves, or of the timber, trees, andc. such exception is void.
If lessee devises his term and dies, and then his executors do waste, and afterwards assent to the devise, an action of waste in the tenuit lies against the executors.

Citations:

[1572] EngR 330, (1572-1616) 5 Co Rep 12, (1572) 77 ER 66

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.432296

Spencer’s Case: KBD 1572

Citations:

[1572] EngR 378, (1572-1616) 5 Co Rep 16, (1572) 77 ER 72

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.432344

Wordsley Brewery v Halford: 1903

A notice to quit was invalid when it was served by the original lessor who had, prior to the service of the notice, granted a concurrent lease.

Citations:

(1903) 90 LT 89

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.426722

Re Lower Onibury Farm, Onibury, Shropshire, Lloyds Bank Ltd v Jones: 1955

Long acquiescence by a landlord, or a failure to insist on his rights, does not amount to a release from a covenant, unless his conduct is wholly inconsistent with the continued existence of the covenant or shows that he intended to waive performance of it.

Citations:

[1955] 2 All ER 409

Citing:

Cited – Hepworth v Pickles ChD 2-Nov-1899
The parties contracted for the sale and purchase of a shop which had been used continuously and openly with an off-licence for the sale of alcohol for twenty four years. After exchange, a restrictive covenant was revealed against the use of land as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.425244

Dobbs v Linford: CA 1953

The tenant had entered into a covenant: ‘not to use the said premises for any purpose other than as a private dwelling-house And not to sublet or part with the possession of the premises (except as a furnished house) without the consent in writing of the landlord.’ He had in fact sub-let the top floor of the premises to the defendant as a self contained flat.
Held: The sub-letting of part of the demised premises was a breach of the covenant not to use the premises for any purpose other than as a private dwelling house.
Romer LJ set out and approved the approach of the County Court judge, saying: ‘He held that the covenant not to use the premises for any other purpose than as a private dwelling-house was an obligation on the tenant to use the premises for that purpose and for that purpose only and that it could not be said that she was complying with that obligation if she were using part of the dwelling-house as a private residence for herself, and was subletting another part to somebody else, even if that other person was using it, and was bound to use it, as a private residence.
The ground on which the judge arrived at that conclusion was that the phrase ‘a private dwelling-house’ envisages the use of the whole building as one dwelling-house, and therefore it creates a conception which is broken by, or is inconsistent with, the division of the house into more than one residence.’ He then said: ‘It seems to me, then, that one has to take this covenant as one finds it, and one finds that it is a covenant to use the premises for no other purpose than that of a private dwelling-house, and one finds, and it is not in dispute, that it has been used by the tenant, partly as a dwelling-house for her sub-tenant. That appears to me to be a plain breach of covenant, which is not rescued from being a breach of covenant by the conception to which I have referred, that she impliedly had the right to sublet that part of it.’ Harman J placed emphasis on the fact that the covenant to use as a private dwelling house was followed by a covenant not to sub-let the whole. He held that a covenant against sub-letting of a part was already provided for in the covenant not to use otherwise than as one single dwelling house. Evershed M.R. agreed with the construction of the County Court judge.

Judges:

Romer LJ, Evershed MR L, Harman J

Citations:

[1953] 1 QB 48

Cited by:

Applied – Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister CA 1-Apr-2004
Land had been purchased which was subject to a restrictive covenant. The papers did not disclose the precise extent of the dominant land, the land which benefitted from the restriction.
Held: The land having the benefit of a covenant had to be . .
Cited – Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd CA 28-Jun-2004
The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant, and was asked whether an indefinite article ‘a private dwellinghouse’ was to be construed as a limitation of number or whether it was to be construed as being as to the manner of use. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421519

Pope v Day: 1635

Bond of Covenants sued against the Lessor, the Lessor is reliev’d in Equity.
The Plaintiff lets the Defendant a Lease at andpound;3 per Annum Rent, and to enter upon Default of Payment of the Rent in twenty Days, the Plaintiff gives a Bond for the Defendant’s quiet Enjoyment of the Premisses, and performing of the Covenants ; the Defendant fails in the Payment of his Rent ; the Plaintiff enters, and the Defendant sues the Bond and gets Judgment, and takes the Plaintiffs Surety in Execution, who pays the Defendant andpound;21.
This Court ordered the Defendant to repay the said andpound;21 to the Plaintiff.

Citations:

[1635] EngR 17, (1635-36) 1 Rep Ch 95, (1635) 21 ER 518 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

landlord and tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.420588

Woodroff v Greenwood: 1653

In a covenant that the lessee shall quietly enjoy, andc, with an exception of the King, his heirs aud successors, an interruption by the King’s patentee is a breach of the covenant.

Citations:

[1653] EngR 2231, (1653) Cro Eliz 518, (1653) 78 ER 766 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.414538

Graham v Gordon: 1843

‘Rent is not liquid in the sense that a sum due by bond is. It is matter of contract in consideration of something to be done. It is paid for possession of the subject let. If the tenant says he has not got entire possession, that is a good answer to the claim for rent.’

Citations:

(1843) 5 D 1207

Cited by:

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

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.410708

Middlegate Properties Limited v Gidlow-Jackson: CA 1977

Citations:

[1977] 34 PandCR 4

Cited by:

Cited – Agricullo Ltd v Yorkshire Housing Ltd CA 16-Mar-2010
The landlord sought leave to appeal against a refusal to award it costs associated with the service of a section 146 notice on the tenant. The tenant had covenanted to repair, and to indemnify the landlord against expenses of such notices. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.403026

Rich v Rich: 1683

In Debate, agreed by the CounseI, and not denied by the Court, that a Lease for Years waiting on the Inheritance of a Citizen, shall not be reckon’d as a Chattel, to be divided among Children by the Custom.

Citations:

[1683] EngR 29, (1683) 2 Chan Cas 160, (1683) 22 ER 894 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.401040

Lewis v MTC Cars Ltd: CA 1975

Russell LJ said: ‘It is quite plain that if you find one person in occupation paying sums by way of rent quarterly or half-yearly to another person, ordinarily speaking it is a right conclusion that there is a relationship between them of contractual landlord and tenant; but, of course, the circumstances may show that there is no justification for such an inference.’

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 457

Citing:

Appeal from – Lewis v MTC Cars Ltd ChD 1974
The landlord served notice in a form which contained two alternatives, but he failed to strike out one. He added a statement as to why he opposed a new tenancy.
Held: The notice was effective.
Templeman J said: ‘No one reading that notice . .

Cited by:

Cited – Longrigg, Burrough Trounson v Smith CA 1979
The defendant dealer in antiques also lived in the property with his wife. He refused to leave after the expiry of the term, claiming a Rent Act tenancy. The lessors had accepted rent from the defendant undertenant who contended that thereby a new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.352248

Montgomery, And Others, Trustees of The Late Duke of Queensberry v Charteris, Earl of Wemyss: PC 10 Dec 1813

Entail, with prohibition against alienation, properly fortified with irritant and resolutive clauses, followed by a permissive clause to let life-rent tacks without diminution of the rental. No specific prohibition against letting of leases, except as above. A lease granted by heir of entail, for 97 years, taking a grassum, or fine. Held that this lease fell under the prohibition against alienation.

Citations:

[1813] EngR 692, (1813) 2 Dow PC 90, (1813) 3 ER 798

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.338457

John Lee Allen v James Berry: PC 1829

Under a lease commenciiig at Whitsuntide, as to the natural grass lands, and as to the arable lands at the severing of the crops, the tenant being bound to Consume the straw upon the land, and sufficiently to cultivate and manure them, the tenant is entitled to the value of the dung made between Whitsuntide and harvest, and left upon the land; and the landlord having at Whisuntide taken the straw upon the farm, which was no more than was requisite for foddering the cattle between that time and the severance of the crops, is bound to pay the value of it to the tenant.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 111, (1829) 4 Bligh NS PC 520, (1829) 5 ER 185

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.321979

Williams v Protheroe: CCP 29 Jan 1829

An agreement between the seller and purchaser of an estate, that the purchaser, bearing the expence of certain suits commenced by the seller against an occupier for arrears of rent, should have the rent to be so recovered, and any sum that could be recovered for dilapidations, and that the purchaser, bearing the expences, might use the seller’s name in actions he might think fit to commence against the occupier for arrears of rent or dilapidations, is not void, as savouring of champerty.
. . from the Court of King’s Bench. The declaration stated that, whereas on the 14th day of December, in the year 1823, at Chepstow, in the county of Monmouth, by a certain agreement then and there made between the said Edmund Williams, the Defendant, of the one part, and the said Thomas Protheroe, the Plaintiff, of the other part, the date whereof was the day and year aforesaid, the said Edmund for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, in consideration of the sum of 1300 l. to be paid to him or them, on the 2d day of February then next ensuing the date thereof, by the said Thomas, did thereby agree with the said Thomas, his heirs and assigns, to sell and convey to him the said Thomas, his heirs and assigns for ever, on the said 2d day of February then next, a certain freehold messuage or dwelling-house, and certain customary messuages, lauds, andc. in the said agreement particularly mentioned and described, and the said Thomas, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, did thereby agree with the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, to purchase the said freehold and customary messuages, lands, and hereditaments thereinbefore mentioned and described, and to pay the said Edmund, his executors and administrators, for the same, the sum, of 1300 l. on the said 2d day of February then next, an having the same conveyed and surrendered to him the said Thomas, his heirs and assign*, by the said Edmund or his heirs,-and it was further agreed that the [310] said Thomas should bear all the expence, costs, and charges of the conveyiance and surrender to him of the said freehold and customary hereditaments and premises, and of any fines, recoveries, or other assurances necessary to convey and surrender the same respectively, and it was further agreed by and between the said parties thereto, that the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should receive the rents and pay all outgoings, in respect of the said freehold hereditaments, up to the said 2d day of February then next; and, after reciting that proceedings, both at law and in equity, were then pending between the said Edmund and Sir Henry Protheroe, in which proceedings at law the said Edmund was Plaintiff, and sought to recover from the said Sir H. Protheroe six years’ rent, at 801. per annum, due the 2d day of February then last, for and in respect of the said customary hereditaments and premises, under and by virtue of a certain agreement made between the said Edmund and the said Sir H. Protheroe, it was by the said agreement, further agreed and declared by and between the said parties thereto, that the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should have and receive the said arrears of rent so claimed to be due from the said Sir H. Protheroe, for his and their own use and benefit, and also the said rent due from the said Sir H. Protheroe, or to become due for the current year, ending on the 2d day of February then next; and, also, that the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should have and be entitled to all sums of money that could be recovered from the said Sir H. Protheroe, for and in respect of dilapidations and wants of repair of and in the said customary hereditaments and premises; and it was thereby further agreed, that the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should be at full liberty to use the name or names o/ the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, in the proceedings at law and in equity then pending between the said Edmund and the said Sir H. Protheroe ; and, also, in any other action or actions, suit or suits, which he, the said Thomas, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should think proper to commence and prosecute against the said Sir H. Protheroe for the recovery of the said arrears of rent, or of the current year’s rent, or for dilapidations, or wants of repair of and in the said customary hereditaments and premises; and it was thereby further agreed, that the said Thomas should bear, pay, and discharge the costs of the said Edmund in the proceedings then pending, and indemnify him, the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, of, from, and against all costs and charges of any future proceedings that might be had by the said Thomas, in the name of the said Edmund, his heirs, executors, and administrators, against the said Sir H. Protheroe ; as by the said agreement, reference being thereunto had, fully appears; and the said agreement being made as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on, andc., at, andc., it was, at the special instance and request of the said Edmund, agreed by and between the said Thomas and the said Edmund, that the price or money to be paid by the said Thomas to the said Edmund for the said freehold estate and tenement in the said articles of agreement first mentioned, should be a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of 800 l, part of the said sum of 1300 l, and that the price or sum to be paid by the said Thomas to the said Edmund, for the said customary tenements and premises in the and agreement also mentioned, should be the residue of the said sum of 1300 l, to wit, the sum of 800 l, subject to the terms in the said agreement specified; and thereupon, afterwards, to wit, on, andc., at, andc., in consideration thereof, and that the and Thomas, at the like special instance and request of the said Edmund, had then and there undertaken and faithfully promised the said Edmund, to perform and fulfil all things in the said agreement contained, on his, the said Thomas’s, part to be performed and fulfilled as such purchaser as aforesaid, he, the said Edmund, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said Thomas, to perform and fulfil all things in the said agreement contained, on his, the said Edmund’s, part and behalf to be performed and fulfilled as such vendor as aforesaid; and although the and Edmund, in part performance of the said agreement, and of his said promise and undertaking, did afterwards, to wit, on, andc., at, andc., sell and convey the said freehold tenements and premises in the said agreement first mentioned to the said Thomas, and his heirs and assigns, at and for the said sum of 500 l., and the said Thomas then and there paid the sum of 500 l. to the said Edmund, upon the terms aforesaid; and although the said Thomas was afterwards, to wit, on, andc., and from thence hitherto leady and willing to accept, receive, and take of and from the said Edmund, a surrender to him, the said Thomas, of the said customary tenements and premises in the said agreement mentioned, at and for the said sum of 800 l., upon the terms aforesaid, and to bear all the expences, costs, and charges of such surrender, and all necessary assurances in that behalf, and to pay the said sum of 800 l., and complete the said purchase on his part and behalf in all respects upon the terms aforesaid, to wit, at, andc.; and although the and Thomas afterwards, to wit, on, andc., and often times afterwards, offered to the said Edmund to complete the said purchase of the said customary tenements and premises, with the appurtenances, upon the terms aforesaid, and requested the said Edmund to sell and surrender to him, the said Thomas, the said customary tenements and premises, upon the terms aforesaid, to wit, at, andc., yet the said Edmund, not regarding the said agreement, nor his said promise and undertaking, but contriving, andc., did not, nor would, on the said 2d day of February in the year last aforesaid, or at any other time, surrender or convey to the said Thomas the said customary tenements and premises in the said agreement in that behalf mentioned, or any part thereof, upon the terms aforesaid, but the said Edmund wrongfully neglected and refused ever to surrender the said customary tenements and premises to the said Thomas, according to the said agreement, and wrongfully discharged the said Thomas from any further performance by him of the said agreement on his part, contrary to the agreement, and the said promise and undertaking of the said Edmund, to wit, at, andc.
Then followed a statement of special damage.
There were several other counts. A general verdict was given for the Plaintiff below, upon which final judgment was entered up, without opposition in the court below.
Curwood for the Plaintiff in error. The first count discloses an illegal agreement, and the verdict and damages being general, the judgment below cannot stand. Holt v. Scholefield (6 T.R. 691).
The agreement presents a clear case of champerty. The statute of 3 Ed. 1, c. 25, against champerty enacts, that ‘No officer of the king by himself, nor by other, shall maintain pleas, suit, or matters depending in the king’s courts, for lands, tenements, or other things for to have part thereof, or other profit, by covenant made; and he that so doth shall be punished at the king’s pleasure.’
The subsequent statute of 28 Ed. 3, c. 11, is as follows: ‘And further, because the king hath heretofore ordained by statute that none of his officers shall take any plea or champerty, and by that statute other than officers were not bounden before this time, the king willeth that no officer nor any other, for to have part of the thing in plea, shall take upon him any businesses that are in suit; nor none upon any such covenant shall give up his right to another: and if any so do, and he be attainted thereof, the taker shall forfeit unto the king so much of his lands or goods as doth amount to the value of the part that he hath purchased by such undertaking: and for such attainder whosoever will shall be received to sue for the king before the justices, before whom the plea shall have been; and the judgment shall be given by them. But it is not to be understood hereby that one may not have counsel of pleaders or of learned men (for his fee), or of his relations or neighbours,’
Although the first of these statutes applies in terms to the king’s officers only, yet it is extended by the second : both shew the sense of the legislature with regard to the offences of maintenance and champerty, and have never in application been considered as limited to the king’s officers.
Then, champerty is an offence punishable at common law, and an agreement which stipulates for the commission of an offence cannot be supported.
In Chesman v, Nainby (2 Ld. Raym. 1459) it was expressly holden, that ‘if a bond is given with condition to do a thing against an act of parliament, and also to pay a just debt, the whole bond will be void.’ Norton Simms (Hob. 14). 1 Wms. Saund. 66 a. n. (1). Here the stipulation that the Plaintiff below shall purchase the suit commenced by the Defendant below goes to the whole agreement, and renders it void.
The Court stopped the counsel for the Defendant in error, and holding that there was no champerty in an agreement to enable the bona fide purchaser of an estate to recover for rent due, or injuries done to it previously to the purchase, more especially where such purchaser was not an officer of the king, the judgment of the court below was Affirmed.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 318, (1829) 5 Bing 309, (1829) 130 ER 1080

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Williams v Protheroe 1829
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.322186

Williams v Protheroe: 1829

Citations:

[1829] EngR 260, (1829) 3 Y and J 129, (1829) 148 ER 1122

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

See Also – Williams v Protheroe CCP 29-Jan-1829
An agreement between the seller and purchaser of an estate, that the purchaser, bearing the expence of certain suits commenced by the seller against an occupier for arrears of rent, should have the rent to be so recovered, and any sum that could be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.322128

Laythoarp v Bryant: 16 Jan 1835

Plaintiff put up to sale by auction a lease of premises, which he occupied as assignee of the lease, stipulation not to produce any title prior to the lease. In an action against a purchaser for not completing his purchase, in which action Plaintiff declared he was possessed of the lease, Held, the Defendant having rejected the abstract, that Plaintiff was bound to prove the execution of the lease by calling the attesting witness, and that it was not sufficient to prove the assignment to Plaintiff.

Citations:

[1835] EngR 383, (1835) 1 Bing NC 421, (1835) 131 ER 1179

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Laythoarp v Bryant 30-Apr-1936
laythoarp_bryant1836
The Defendant purchased certain leasehold premises at an auction, and signed a memorandum of the purchase on the back of a paper containing the particulars of the premises, the name of the owner, and the conditions of sale: Held, that the Defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.315891

MacMahon v Burchell: 20 Apr 1843

A share of rent due from the occupying tenant of certain premises to the estate of a testatrix, who was one of several tenants in common of the same premises, allowed to be set off by her executors in a suit for a legacy bequeathed by the testatrix to the debtor; but not as against a legacy bequeathed by the testatrix to the wife of the debtor.

Citations:

[1843] EngR 526, (1843) 3 Hare 97, (1843) 67 ER 312

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

See Also – M’Mohan v Burchell 30-Apr-1845
. .
See Also – M’Mahon v Burchell CA 1846
Terence M’Mahon had left his house in St Christopher to his seven children as tenants in common. One of them (William) frequently occupied the house, three others occupied it occasionally, and three not at all. The executors of one of the children . .
See Also – M’Mohon v Burchell 5-Jun-1846
. .
See Also – William M’Mahon And Wife v Burchell And Another 4-Dec-1846
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.306220

Doe On The Several Demise Of Hughes And Corbett v Derry: 1841

A., being owner of a farm, let it for seven years to B , and by a written agreement of the same date it was agreed, that A. should manage the farm for B, E allowing A 12s. a week, ‘and allowing him and his family to reside and have’ the use of the dwelling-house and furniture thereiu, free of rent,’ and this agreement was to be put an end to by three months’ notice or three months’ wages –Held, that this agreement did not require a lease stamp, as it did not contain a demise of the house, the occupation of it being a mere remuneration for servlces :-Held, also, that no notice to quit way necessary, if the service was put an end to Whether in ejectment the lessor of the plaintiff must have a certificate under the stat 3 and 4 Vict c. 24, to entitle him to costs.

Citations:

[1841] EngR 28, (1841) 9 Car and P 494, (1841) 173 ER 926

Links:

Commonlii

Stamp Duty, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.308206

Cross v Ayres and Horncastle: 24 Apr 1858

In an action for an excessive distress, with counts for selling without, an appraisement and for less than the value, and for not leaving over the surplus proceeds in the hands of the sheriff, according to the statute , there being no count for not paying the money over to the plaintiff, nor for detaining it an unreasonable time, nor for money had. and received to his use ; and the jury finding that the rent for which the distress was made was due, but that the defendants seized to an unreasonable amount, but that the plaintiff had authorized the defendant to seize and sell the whole ; and the defence being, that the surplus having been paid over to a judgment creditor of the plaintiff’s under a garnishment order for the attachment of the money obtained by the creditor in consequence of an intimation of the distress given to him by the defendant, and the jury finding that this was a juggle, and, under the direction of the Judge, giving a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the surpius proceeds ; the postea was afterwards altered by entering a verdict for the plaintiff, with riomrnal damages, on the first count, and for the defendant on tbe others , the payment over to the credttor urider the garnishment order being held to have been a Iegal justification. The Judge having entered the verdict for the plaintiff for nominal damages, the Court discharged cross rules to enter it for the defendant, or for substantial damages.

Citations:

[1858] EngR 596, (1858) 1 F and F 187, (1858) 175 ER 684

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.289067

Property Holding Co Ltd v Clark: CA 1948

Evershed LJ discussed the meaning of ‘rent’: ‘prima facie the rent is the monetary compensation payable by the tenant in consideration for the grant, however it be described or allocated. Alternatively, it may be described . . as the contractual monetary obligation the payment of which is the condition of the right to enjoy the property granted.’

Judges:

Evershed LJ

Citations:

[1948] 1 KB 630

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.279100

J W Childers Trustees v Anker: 1996

Citations:

[1996] 1 EGLR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.279105

Smith v Cox: 1942

The tenant, Mr Smith, refused to pay rent to the elderly landlady, Ms Rolf, because she had not repaired the property. The defendant agent paid the rent from his own pocket, expecting to recover it when the rent was eventually paid. When he failed to obtain the rent, he distrained and recovered andpound;180, which was the rent due, less deductions for repairs. The plaintiff sued for damages, contending that the distraint was unlawful because the rent had been paid by the defendant. He admitted that the rent was paid without his knowledge and not at his request.
Held: The judge found for the defendant. There was no evidence that: ‘the defendant acted or purported to act or regarded himself as acting as the agent of the plaintiff. The view which I take of this transaction is that the defendant did no more than advance out of his own pocket to an elderly impecunious landlord money which he did not wish her to be without for any length of time and so he took the risk of recouping himself later on. That being so, this action must fail because it is based on the allegation that there was an illegal distress, on the ground that the plaintiff had paid his rent or that somebody had paid it for him.’ As between a tenant and a landlord, if a stranger or third person purported to make a discharge of rent, the landlord was entitled to reject the payment.

Judges:

Humphreys J

Citations:

[1942] 2 KB 558

Citing:

Applied – Simpson v Eggington 9-Feb-1855
It is a good answer to a plea of set-off, that the amount has heen paid by a person professing to act as agent for and on account of the plaintiff, though without his authority, and that the latter ratified the act at the time of the trial. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.276501

Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet: CA 1979

The amount of damages payable by a trespasser on land is ordinarily the letting value of the premises. Megaw LJ said: ‘It appears to me to be clear, both as a matter of principle and of authority, that in a case of this sort the plaintiff, when he has established that the defendant has remained on as a trespasser in residential property, is entitled, without bringing evidence that he could or would have let the property to someone else in the absence of the trespassing defendant, to have as damages for the trespass the value of the property as it would fairly be calculated; and, in the absence of anything special in the particular case it would be the ordinary letting value of the property that would determine the amount of damages. In the present case, therefore, it appears to me that this appeal falls to be allowed and that the plaintiffs ought to have, not merely judgment for possession, but also damages for trespass for whatever would have been the appropriate amount . . as being the proper letting value of the property from July 5, 1976, to the date of the judgment in the West London County Court’.

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 285, [1979] 1 All ER 240

Cited by:

Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Sa (France) and others CA 14-Oct-2008
The defendant had been involved in price fixing arrangements, and the claimant sought damages for breach of its proprietary rights. The claimant appealed refusal of an award an account of profits for what was akin to a breach of statutory duty.
Cited – Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Applied – Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett PC 1995
The plaintiff was the lessee of 30 apartments within a hotel complex. The defendants ejected the plaintiff and for some years used the apartments as part of the hotel with an average occupancy rate of not more than 40%.
Held: The defendants . .
Cited – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd CA 19-Aug-2011
The defendant had broken through into a neighbour’s flying freehold room, closed it off, and then included it in its own premises for let. It now appealed against the quantum of damages awarded. The judge had found the actions deliberate and with a . .
Cited – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd ChD 8-Oct-2010
The claimant owned a flying freehold room butting into the defendant’s property. Whilst the claimant’s property was unoccupied, the defendant broke through into the room, blocked off the door to the claimant’s property, and included the room in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.276910

Alford v Vickery: 18 Mar 1842

A notice given not by all the freeholders to a yearly tenant was valid despite the non-involvement of one of the freeholders.

Citations:

(1842) Car and M 280, [1842] EngR 398, (1842) Car and M 280, (1842) 174 ER 507

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Doe d Aslin v Summersett KBD 1830
Majority of Trustees May Exercise Power
The freehold in land which was let on a yearly tenancy was vested jointly in four executors of a will to whom the land had been jointly devised. Three only of the executors gave notice to the tenant to quit. The fourth objected.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.272272

Martinali v Ramuz: CA 1953

Under Section 10 of the 1951 Act an occupier might apply for obtain a new tenancy. The expiring tenancy had end immediately before the Act came into force or within two years of that date, ‘and would so come to an end by effluxion of time or by the expiration of a notice ‘ to quit given by the landlord’. The tenant died and his executors applied for a new lease under section 69(1). The County Court Judge heard a preliminary objection that the occupier was a tenant at will, and that as his occupation had not been determined by notice to quit and it was not a tenancy which expired by effluxion of time, it was not covered by section 10 of the 1951 Act. No notice to quit had been given, but also a tenancy at will did not fall within the protection afforded by the 1951 Act.
Held: Singleton LJ supported the view that a tenancy at will could not support an application for a new tenancy.

Judges:

Singleton LJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 WLR 1196

Statutes:

Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act 1951 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wheeler v Mercer HL 31-Oct-1956
The freeholder sought possession of his premises occupied by the defendant over many years. The tenant said that he had the protection of the 1954 Act as a tenant at will. The landlord said that the occupation was not protected. The formal tenancy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.267740

Schalit v Joseph Nadler Ltd: CA 1933

Mr Nadler was a lessee of property, part of which he sublet to the plaintiff. In 1931 he made a declaration of trust, under which he declared that the property was held in trust for his company, Joseph Nadler Ltd. Shortly after the company purported to distrain for arrears of rent under the subtenancy. The plaintiff issued proceedings for damages for illegal distress. The company argued that it was a person entitled to receive the rents, and therefore under section 141(2) it was able to enforce the covenants.
Held: It did not qualify the ability of an absolute beneficial owner to recover rent. Section 141(2) did not by itself permit the beneficiary of a trust of the landlord’s reversionary interest to distrain for rent. The company was not entitled to the rents as such, but only to an account of the ‘net proceeds’ after meeting any liabilities of Mr Nadler under the headlease

Judges:

Goddard J

Citations:

[1933] 2 KB 79

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Turner v Walsh CA 1909
The landlord sought to enforce the tenant’s repairing covenants. After the tenancy had been created, he had charged his interest. The tenant said that, since the lessor had conveyed his interest by way of mortgage, the right to sue lay exclusively . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and Others ChD 4-Apr-2007
Land at Wembley stadium had been sold to the defendants and leased back. The defendant assigned the freehold within the group, declaring that the lease was held in trust for the original freeholder. The claimant now said that the defendant assignee . .
Not approved – Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others CA 20-Dec-2004
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and . .
Cited – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.263794

Dearle v Hall: 1828

Citations:

[1828] 3 Russ 1, [1828] EngR 574, (1823, 1827, 1828) 3 Russ 1, (1828) 38 ER 475

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others CA 2-Feb-1996
The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge.
Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of . .
Cited – Rhodes v Allied Dunbar Pension Services Ltd CA 1989
The intermediate tenant had charged the lease to the bank, which appointed receivers. Both the sub rent and the head rent fell into arrears. The head landlord then served a notice direct on the subtenant requiring him to pay the rent direct to the . .
Disapplied – United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others ChD 24-Jun-1994
The customer had deposited title deeds with the bank as security for a loan, but no deed of charge had been executed.
Held: The mere deposit of title deeds does not create an equitable charge without more. The 1989 Act operated as a statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.264576

Sarum Trust Ltd v Duke of Westminster: 1953

Lessees asked the court for variation of the terms of their lease so as to permit further subdivision of the premises. The application failed in the county court. The landlord’s interests elsewhere might be affected if the application were granted, by leading to further applications of a similar kind; that the landlord’s objection to an increase of density of the population was reasonable; and that there would be no advantage to the public in making the variation.
Held: The lessees submitted that where planning permission had been granted the court should vary the terms of the lease, its discretion being limited to how, and on what terms and conditions, the planning permission should be carried out, but the court rejected the submission. The general subject-matter of section 163 of the 1936 Act was against the contention that ‘may’ in the section should be construed as ‘shall’, and that the judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion he had reached.

Citations:

[1953] CPL 86

Statutes:

Housing Act 1936 163, Housing Act 1949 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lawntown Ltd v Camenzuli and Another CA 10-Oct-2007
Objecting neighbours appealed against a decision allowing a variation of a restrictive covenant to allow the owner to convert a dwellinghouse into two self-contained apartments.
Held: The appeal failed. The power in the 1985 Act to vary a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.260192

Cockburn v Smith: 1924

The owner of a block of flats let one to the tenant, but kept the roof and guttering in his own possession and control. The guttering became defective and the landlord failed to remedy it after notice. Rainwater escaped and caused damage to the Claimant.
Held: The landlords were liable for the damage suffered by her.
Bankes LJ referred to a ‘line of authorities to show that a landlord is under an obligation to take reasonable care that the premises retained in his occupation are not in such a condition as to cause damage to the parts demised to others.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ, Bankes LJ and Sargant LJ

Citations:

[1924] 2 KB 119

Citing:

Applied – Rylands v Fletcher CEC 1865
Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61.
Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . .

Cited by:

Cited – Westminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .
Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2008
The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.259564

Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder: 1978

Mr Fielder and Miss Maxwell together applied to take a self-contained flat. Each signed an agreement to pay andpound;54.17 per month to share the use of the flat with one other person. The couple moved into the flat and enjoyed exclusive occupation. In terms if the couple parted and Mr Fielder moved out or his agreement was terminated was, the owner could require Miss Maxwell to share her living and sleeping quarters with a stranger or move out herself. They had exclusive occupation unless and until one of their agreements was terminated.
Held: The right resreved by the landlord was contrary to the Rent Acts and was, in the circumstances, a pretence intended only to get round them.

Citations:

[1978] 37 P and CR 461

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.259693