Citations:

[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 00HN –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623062

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT RP – DD – LON – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623080

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT RP – LON – 00AW –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623078

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT RP – CAM – 22UB –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623071

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 21UC –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623043

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT RP – MAN – 00BZ –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623039

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT RP – CHI – 43UL –

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.623040

Judges:

Lord Denning Mr, Lord Justice Upjohn
And
Lord Justice Diplock

Citations:

[1963] EWCA Civ 1, [1963] 1 All ER 781, [1963] RVR 245, [1963] Ch 459, [1963] 2 WLR 629

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd SC 30-Oct-2019
The Court was asked whether a claim against a bank for breach of the Quincecare duty is defeated if the customer is a company, and the fraudulent payment instructions are given by the company’s Chairman and sole shareholder who is the dominating . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.262802

Consent to Assignment Unreasonably Withheld

The landlord had refused a proposed assignment of office premises from a tenant who had occupied the premises as its permanent offices, to a tenant who proposed to use the premises as serviced offices – that is, for short-term rent to others. The lease provided that the only permitted use of the premises was as offices.
Held: The court distinguished between an assignment to a tenant who proposed to use the premises for a purpose which was not prohibited by the lease, and, as in the case before it, in which the assignee proposed to use the premises for the only purpose permitted by the lease. Because the assignee proposed to use the premises for the only purpose permitted by the lease, the court considered that the landlord was unreasonable in refusing consent, in part because the detriment to the assignor was extreme and disproportionate to that which would be suffered by the landlord if consent was granted.
Balcombe LJ distilled seven general principles from his review of the earlier cases: ‘1 The purpose of a covenant against assignment without the consent of the landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, is to protect the lessor from having his premises used or occupied in an undesirable way, or by an undesirable tenant or assignee.
2 A landlord is not entitled to refuse his consent to an assignment on grounds which have nothing whatever to do with the relationship of landlord and tenant in regard to the subject matter of the lease.
3 The onus of proving that consent has been unreasonably withheld is on the tenant.
4 It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the conclusions which led him to refuse consent were justified if they were conclusions which might be reached by a reasonable man in the circumstances.
5 It may be reasonable for the landlord to refuse his consent to an assignment on the ground of the purpose for which the proposed assignee intends to use the premises, even though that purpose is not forbidden by the lease.
6 Although there is a tension in the earlier authorities, the better view is that it is permissible to have regard to the consequences to the tenant if consent to the proposed assignment is withheld.
7 Subject to the preceding propositions, it is in each case a question of fact, depending upon all the circumstances, whether the landlord’s consent to an assignment is being unreasonably withheld.’

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

[1986] Ch 513, [1985] EWCA Civ 3, [1986] 1 EGLR 39, [1985] EWCA Civ 11

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – West Layton Ltd v Ford; West Layton Ltd v Joseph and Another CA 12-Feb-1979
When considering whether to consent to an assignment of a lease, a landlord need consider only his own interests. . .
Cited – Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss CA 1982
When considering whether to give consent to an assignment of a lease, the landlord need consider only his own interests.
Slade LJ said: ‘I find it rather more surprising that, when the landlords came subsequently to question the validity of . .
Cited – Houlder Brothers and Co Ltd v Gibbs CA 1925
The landlord owned two adjoining commercial properties. The tenant of one proposed to assign the lease to the tenant of the adjoining property. The landlord refused consent on the ground that if the assignment went ahead, it was likely that the . .
Cited – Bickel v Duke of Westminster CA 1977
The freeholder had refused consent to an assignment of the head lease of a house to a lady who, if she had become tenant under the head lease for five years, would have been entitled to buy the freehold from the Estate. The existing tenant was a . .
Cited – Shanly v Ward CA 1913
A tenant challenged his landlord’s refusal of consent to an assignment.
Held: The refusal was reasonable. The onus of proving that consent has been unreasonably withheld is on the tenant. It was not enough to show that other lessors might have . .

Cited by:

Reviewed – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .
Cited – Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited ChD 25-Feb-2004
The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal.
Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, and was an act . .
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 . .
Explained – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 3-Feb-2000
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after . .
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 . .
Cited – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2004
The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting.
Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and . .
Applied – Orlando Investments v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia 1989
The lease contained a tenant’s covenant to repair, and not to assign without the landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. T, himself an assignee, and therefore not liable on the covenant after assignment, sought consent from . .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 10-Apr-1997
The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
Held: The 1988 Act . .
Cited – Landlord Protect Ltd v St Anselm Development Company Ltd CA 20-Feb-2009
Guarantee beyond term was unreasonable
The tenant objected that the landlord’s conditional consent to an assignment was unreasonable. The purchaser was a dormant company which had never traded. The clause referred to ‘a respectable and responsible assignee or sub-tenant’. The tenant had . .
Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD 6-Oct-2016
Consent to assignment – delay
Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD 6-Oct-2016
Consent to assignment – delay
Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
Cited – Sequent Nominees Ltd (Formerly Rotrust Nominees Ltd) v Hautford Ltd SC 30-Oct-2019
The tenant promised in the lease not to apply for any planning permission without the consent of the landlord, not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant wished to apply for planning permission for a change of use of part of the demised premises, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.187990

The freeholder had refused consent to an assignment of the head lease of a house to a lady who, if she had become tenant under the head lease for five years, would have been entitled to buy the freehold from the Estate. The existing tenant was a company who would achieve no such right.
Held: The refusal was proper. The reason for refusal was related to the personality of the assignee, and in particular the fact that she was a natural person, not a corporation.
Lord Denning MR considered earlier cases and continued: ‘If those cases can properly be regarded as laying down propositions of law, I would agree that we ought to hold the landlords’ refusal to be unreasonable. But I do not think they do lay down any propositions of law, and for this reason. The words of the contract are perfectly clear English words: ‘such licence shall not be unreasonably withheld.’ When those words come to be applied in any particular case, I do not think the court can, or should, determine by strict rules the grounds on which a landlord may, or may not, reasonably refuse his consent. He is not limited by the contract to any particular grounds. Nor should the courts limit him. Not even under the guise of construing the words. The landlord has to exercise his judgment in all sorts of circumstances. It is impossible for him, or for the courts, to envisage them all. When this lease was granted in 1947 no one could have foreseen that 20 years later Parliament would give a tenant a right to buy up the freehold. Seeing that the circumstances are infinitely various, it is impossible to formulate strict rules as to how a landlord should exercise his power of refusal. The utmost that the courts can do is to give guidance to those who have to consider the problem. As one decision follows another, people will get to know the likely result in any given set of circumstances. But no one decision will be a binding precedent as a strict rule of law. The reasons given by the judges are to be treated as propositions of good sense – in relation to the particular case – rather than propositions of law applicable to all cases. It is rather like the cases where a statute gives the court a discretion. It has always been held that this discretion is not to be fettered by strict rules: and that all that can be properly done is to indicate the chief considerations which help to arrive at a just conclusion: see Blunt v Blunt [1943] AC 517; Ward v James [1966] 1 QB 273.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1977] QB 517

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .
Approved – West Layton Ltd v Ford; West Layton Ltd v Joseph and Another CA 12-Feb-1979
When considering whether to consent to an assignment of a lease, a landlord need consider only his own interests. . .
Cited – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 3-Feb-2000
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after . .
Cited – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2004
The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting.
Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and . .
Cited – International Drilling Fluids v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd CA 20-Nov-1985
Consent to Assignment Unreasonably Withheld
The landlord had refused a proposed assignment of office premises from a tenant who had occupied the premises as its permanent offices, to a tenant who proposed to use the premises as serviced offices – that is, for short-term rent to others. The . .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 10-Apr-1997
The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
Held: The 1988 Act . .
Cited – Sequent Nominees Ltd (Formerly Rotrust Nominees Ltd) v Hautford Ltd SC 30-Oct-2019
The tenant promised in the lease not to apply for any planning permission without the consent of the landlord, not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant wished to apply for planning permission for a change of use of part of the demised premises, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.180308

Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so called’ is one of law. The House made two particular points of general application on the interpretation of the phrase ‘Which may reasonably be called a house’ in the 1967 Act.
Lord Roskill said: ‘Small corner shops and terrace shops combined with living accommodation are to be found in almost every town and village in England and Wales. Parliament plainly intended that a tenant who occupied such premises as his residence should have the benefit of the Act if the building could reasonably be called a ‘house’. It is imperative, if the law is to be evenly and justly administered, that there should be not only uniformity of principle in the approach of the courts to the question but also a broad consistency in the conclusions reached. The question must not, save within narrow limits, be treated by the courts as a question of fact: for the variations of judicial response could well be such as to give rise to unacceptable, indeed unjust, differences between one case and another. This could lead to the statute being applied to two practically identical buildings one way by one judge and another by another – an echo of equity and the length of the Chancellor’s foot. For this reason, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lake v Bennett [1970] 1 QB 663 was welcome as stating a principle and confirming the question of fact to a narrow area. I deduce from it the following propositions of law: (1) as long as a building of mixed use can reasonably be called a house, it is within the statutory meaning of ‘house’, even though it may also reasonably be called something else; (2) it is a question of law whether it is reasonable to call a building a ‘house’; (3) if the building is designed or adapted for living in, by which as is plain from section 1(1) of the Act of 1967, is meant designed or adapted for occupation as a residence, only exceptional circumstances, which I find hard to envisage, would justify a judge in holding that it could not reasonably be called a house. They would have to be such that nobody could reasonably call the building a house.’

Judges:

Lord Roskill, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Fraser

Citations:

[1982] AC 755

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Lake v Bennett CA 1970
The building had been constructed in 1869. It was used as a house on three floors with a basement. The ground floor was later used as a shoe repairing shop and then as a betting shop with living accommodation still used for dwelling purposes in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Collins v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 16-Apr-2003
The tenant sought the right to purchase the freehold reversion. Her landlord resisted saying that the properties were excluded from enfranchisement being divided vertically.
Held: The cases are fact dependent, and earlier precedents must be . .
Distinguished – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
Cited – Boss Holdings Ltd and Another v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd CA 21-Mar-2006
The tenant served a notice of its desire to purchase the freehold. The landlord objected that the property was no longer a house as required under the Act, having become dilapidated and unoccupied.
Held: The nature of the occupancy was to be . .
Cited – Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and others HL 30-Jan-2008
The tenant sought to enfranchise the property under the 1967 Act. The freeholders replied that it was not a ‘house’ within the Act at the time of the notice. It had been built in the eighteenth century as a house, but the lower floors had been . .
Cited – Grosvenor Estates Ltd v Prospect Estates Ltd CA 21-Nov-2008
The tenant under a long lease sought enfranchisement. The landlord denied that it was a ‘house’ reasonably so called within the 1967 Act. The building had been constructed as a house, but was now substantially used as offices. They could only be . .
Cited – Day and Another v Hosebay Ltd; Lexgorge Ltd v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd etc CA 1-Jul-2010
Properties had been built as substantial single dwellings. Later they had been converted into separate dwellings and let accordingly. The tenants sought to acquire the freeholds under the 1967 Act. Though required by the lease to use the properties . .
Cited – Magnohard Ltd v Cadogan and Another CA 4-May-2012
The parties disputed whether a building was a house ‘reasonably so called’ within the 1987 Act. The instant building was designed or adapted for living in, and was divided horizontally into six flats or maisonettes, and included shops.
Held: . .
Cited – Day and Another v Hosebay Ltd SC 10-Oct-2012
The Court considered the provisions for leasehold enfranchisement now that the residence requirement had been removed by the 2002 Act, and in particular the extent to which, at all, it had allowed enfranchisement to be available to commercial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.181881

The agreement granted a tenancy to ‘hold for the term of one year . . at the inclusive weekly rent of andpound;3 payable weekly in advance on Monday in each week during the whole of the tenancy’. The question was whether a week’s notice was adequate to terminate the tenancy after the term expired. The tenant relied on the rebuttable presumption that when there has been a yearly tenancy and the tenant holds on and rent is accepted, it is a yearly tenancy.
Held: Somervell LJ said: ‘I think that when, as here, a term comes to an end one has, of course, to consider what inferences are properly to be drawn from the payment and acceptance of rent. That is the basis of the presumption. In the cases in the books the rent is expressed to be so much per year and if one takes the extreme case in which the rent being so expressed is to be payable weekly, when the landlord accepts a weekly sum, what he is accepting is an instalment of the agreed figure for a yearly rent. One, therefore, sees from that the force of the line of argument which has led the courts in those cases to presume a tenancy for a further year. But in a case like the present, where rent is expressed to be per week, I think that when the fixed period has come to an end one should not presume anything but a weekly tenancy, namely a tenancy for the period in respect of which the rent is expressed.’
Jenkins LJ: ‘With exceptions to which I will later refer, I think all the cases in which an implication of a yearly tenancy taking effect after the termination of a letting for one year, or a term of years, has been held to have been raised had been cases where the original letting, from which the implication was deduced, was a letting for a year or for a term of years at an annual rent, that is to say, a rent expressed as an annual sum, by whatever instalments it may have been made payable.’

Judges:

Somervell LJ, Jenkins LJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 QB 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Church Commissioners for England v Meya CA 21-Jun-2006
The commissioners let a flat to the tenant on an assured shorthold tenancy for a year less one day with the rent payable quarterly. The tenancy continued as a statutory periodic tenancy. The court was asked whether the statutory tenancy was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.242682

A lease term ran for 21 years from 25 December 1934. A break clause gave either party the right to determine the lease at the expiration of the first seven years, by six calendar months’ notice. The landlord gave notice to the tenant’s solicitors in the following terms: ‘As I may have to be away for some time in the near future, I will be obliged if you would accept the six months’ notice to terminate your client’s lease which I am allowed to give on June 21, 1941. This would mean that he would have to give up the cottage on December 21, 1941.’ The notice should have expired on 25, not 21, December. At first instance, Asquith J. had held that the notice could be saved on the basis that it had been accepted as a good notice by the tenant’s solicitors.
Held: The notice was ineffective. Break notices ‘must on their face and on a fair and reasonable construction do what the lease provides that they are to do.’
Clauson LJ said: ‘I should have thought that, as a matter of construction, an argument other than that which leads to the result the Master of the Rolls has announced was quite untenable.’
and (Greene MR) ‘This appeal raises a short point in connection with a break clause in a lease wherein the plaintiff was the lessor and the defendant was the lessee. By his letter of January 15, 1940, the plaintiff, on the face of it, was purporting to determine the lease by notice on December 21, 1941. The whole thing was obviously a slip on his part, and there is a natural temptation to put a strained construction on language in aid of people who have been unfortunate enough to make slips. That, however, is a temptation which must be resisted, because documents are not to be strained and principles of construction are not to be outraged in order to do what may appear to be fair in an individual case.’ and ‘Notices of this kind are documents of a technical nature, technical because they are not consensual documents, but, if they are in proper form, they have of their own force without any assent by the recipient the effect of bringing the demise to an end. They must on their face and on a fair and reasonable construction do what the lease provides that they are to do. It is perfectly true that in construing such a document, as in construing all documents, the court in a case of ambiguity will lean in favour of reading the document in such a way as to give it validity, but I dissent entirely from the proposition that, where a document is clear and specific, but inaccurate on some matter, such as that of date, it is possible to ignore the inaccuracy and substitute the correct date or other particular because it appears that the error was inserted by a slip. By the clear wording of this notice the plaintiff purported to bring the lease to an end on December 21, 1941. In so doing he was attempting to do something which he had no power to do, and, however much the recipient might guess, or however certain he might be, that it was a mere slip, that would not cure the defect because the document was never capable on its face of producing the necessary legal consequence.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR,Clauson LJ

Citations:

[1942] 2 KB 326

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Distinguished – Carradine Properties Ltd v Aslam ChD 1976
Under a break clause in a lease, the relevant date upon which a notice given by either party under the clause might take effect was a date in September 1975, but the landlord’s notice in September 1974 specified a date in 1973. The date in 1973, had . .
Distinguished – Micrografix v Woking 8 Ltd ChD 1995
The tenants gave a notice determining the lease on 23 March 1995 when under the relevant clause they could only have done so on 23 June 1995. Jacob J. held that, as the landlords knew that the date of determination could only be 23 June 1995, they . .
Doubted – Garston v Scottish Widows’ Fund and Life Assurance Society ChD 1996
A lease allowed a break clause to be exercised on six month’s notice. The notice given was calculated by reference to the wrong date, the date of the lease, and not the term contained in it.
Held: The mistake was not sufficiently clear to . .
Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.185078

The question was whether under the a notice to avoid disclaimer given by the landlord under the Act, requiring the tenant to retain the lease on the terms set out in section 10, was invalid because section 10 was irrelevant and by mistake inserted for section 11.
Held: The notice was good. Lord Greene MR said: ‘Reading this document as a whole, it seems to me perfectly manifest that a person who received it, and who had that familiarity with the provisions of the Act which a recipient of such a document must be presumed to have, could not possibly be under any illusion as to what it was intended to be and what its legal consequences were.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1942] 1 All ER 453

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.185089

A notice was deemed valid despite an error since the error was not in the operative party of the notice.

Judges:

Buckley L.J

Citations:

[1978] 37 P and CR 204

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.185085

Judges:

Richard Hevery QC J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Technology 172, [2000] L and TR 495, [2000] 2 EGLR 115, [2000] EG 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.201793

LVT Houses/Flats – Enfranchisement, Lease Extensions and Compensation for Loss

Citations:

[2010] EWLVT BIR – LV – HEL – 00CR – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.436287

LVT Service Charges

Citations:

[2010] EWLVT LON – LV – SVC – 00AZ – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.436315

LVT (No Fault Right To Manage)

Citations:

[2010] EWLVT CAM – LV – NFR – 26UK – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.436335

LVT Service Charges

Citations:

[2010] EWLVT CHI – LV – SVC – 18UB – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.436380

Service Charges

Citations:

[2010] EWLVT CAM – LV – SVC – 00MG – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.436316

Service Charges

Citations:

[2010] EWLVT CAM – LV – SVC – 22UH – 0

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.436336

There were two separate tenancies of a shop and a kiosk in the same office building, granted consecutively by the same landlord to the same tenant. Each contained a covenant by the tenant to use the demised premises as a tobacconist’s shop only. The tenancies were assigned together to a company which went into creditor’s voluntary liquidation. The liquidator applied for consent to assign the tenancy of the kiosk alone to an assignee who wished to carry on the trade of tobacconist in it.
Held: The court upheld the refusal of consent. Even though the proposed use was permitted by the lease, the landlord’s reasons for refusal were reasonable, and were sufficiently related to the relationship of landlord and tenant under the lease. The proposed assignment would prejudice the chances of finding anyone prepared to take an assignment of the tenancy of the shop.

Judges:

Bennett J

Citations:

[1933] Ch 904

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.468827