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.’


Garland J


[1989] 2 EGLR 38


Law of Property Act 1925 142


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmith 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 . .
CitedEdlington 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