Edwards v Etherington: 1825

The defendant had been the tenant of a house from year to year. He left without notice, saying that the walls were dilapidated to the point of being unsafe. On a Nisi Prius, these facts were held to be an answer to an action by the landlord for use and occupation. The court directed the jury, that, although slight circumstances would not suffice, such serious reasons might exist as would justify a tenant’s quitting at any time; and that it was for them to say whether, in the case before them, such serious reasons existed as would exempt the defendant from the plaintiff’s demand, on the ground of his having had no beneficial use and occupation of the premises. The jury found for the defendant, and the Court of King’s Bench was afterwards moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection; but they refused to disturb the verdict.
Lord Tenterden CJ said: ‘Slight circumstances will not suffice but such serious reasons may exist, as will justify a tenant in quitting at any time, and it is for you to say whether in this case any such exist.
It is for you to say whether such serious reasons for quitting, existed in this case, as will exempt the defendant from this demand, on the ground of his having had no beneficial use and occupation of these premises; and that, through no default of his own, but through the fault of a person (the Plaintiff) who ought to have taken care, that the premises should have been in such a state, as to continue useful to the defendant.’

Judges:

Lord Tenterden CJ

Citations:

(1825) Ry and M 268

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHussain v Mehlman CC 5-Mar-1992
(County Court) The defendant landlord granted the plaintiff a three year assured shorthold tenancy. He now appealed a finding that he was in breach of an implied covenant to maintain the space heating, and otherwise. The tenant had returned the . .
CitedSmith v Marrable, Knt ExP 14-Jan-1843
Premises were let furnished with the tenant paying a weekly rent of eight guineas. The tenant complained that the premises were unfit, being infested with bugs, and left. The landlord sued for his rent.
Held: As an exception to the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.258836