Gary White, Ellen White v Riverside Housing Association Ltd: CA 6 Dec 2005

The Association’s tenants said that a clause in their tenancy agreement would allow for an increase in the rent only once a year, and then only in June and if 28 days notice was given before the first Monday in June.
Held: The notices were ineffective. Sir Peter Gibson: ‘All that [clause 2 (7)] has done is to identify the rent variation date. It contains no obligation on Riverside to do something by a particular time and there is therefore no failure against which equity would relieve on the basis that the time provision was non-essential.’


Sir Peter Gibson


[2005] EWCA Civ 1385




England and Wales


CitedUnited Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council HL 1978
The House was asked whether a failure by a lessor to keep strictly to the timetable laid down in a rent review clause in a lease necessarily deprived the lessor of the benefit of the rent review.
Held: A stipulation as to time in an option . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRiverside Housing Association Ltd v White and Another HL 25-Apr-2007
The claimant housing association had raised its rents. The tenants objected that they were unlawful not having complied with the tenancy agreements. They said the clause allowed only one increase in each June of a year, and then only if 28 days . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.235725