Wartime regulations were implemented which prohibited the building on land which was already subject to a building lease which required the lessees to erect several shops.
Held: Even if the doctrine of frustration could apply to a lease, the circumstances did not justify such application; the lease had not been determined by frustration, and the liability for rent continued. The regulations were temporary, and the lease was therefore not frustrated. A lease will rarely be frustrated; it might require a ‘vast convulsion of nature.’ Frustration is ‘apt to vindicate justice wherever owing to relevant supervening circumstances the enforcement of any contractual arrangement in its literal terms would produce injustice’
Lord Russell said: ‘The contractual obligations [under a lease] of each party are merely obligations which are incidental to the relationship of landlord and tenant created by the demise, and which necessarily vary with the character and duration of the particular lease. It may well be that circumstances may arise during the currency of the term which render it difficult, or even impossible, for one party or the other to carry out some of its obligations as landlord or tenant, circumstances which might afford a defence to a claim for damages for their breach, but the lease would remain.’
Viscount Simon, Lord Russell, Lord Goddard
[1945] AC 221, [1945] 1 All ER 525
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Matthey v Curling HL 1922
During the term of the lease, the property had been taken over by the military authorities under wartime powers. Shortly before the term expired the house was destroyed in a fire. The lessor claimed the last quarter’s rent and for breach of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Graves v Graves and others CA 3-Jul-2007
The parties had divorced and settled financial provision, but the former wife and her children came to need a house and one of the claimant’s properties became vacant, and she was allowed to occupy it as a tenant, with the majority of the rent being . .
Cited – National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd HL 11-Dec-1980
No Frustration of Lease through loss of access
The tenant’s access to the premises was closed by the local authority because it passed by a derelict and dangerous building. The tenant argued that its tenancy was frustrated.
Held: The lease was not frustrated. The lease had a term of ten . .
Cited – John Lewis Properties PLC v Viscount Chelsea ChD 1993
Three Leases of the Peter Jones site to T’s predecessor in 1934 contained covenants by T to redevelop the site in two phases, the second of which related to the MackMurdo and Simon’s Street buildings and was to be completed by December 25 1987. In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.245880 br>