The court considered the determination of a new rent on the conversion of a long tenancy protected under Part I of the 1954 Act to an assured periodic tenancy under the 1988 Act. The tenant had carried out improvements which she now wanted to be discounted in calculating the rent. If it was not so discounted, the rent payable would exceed the limit for protection as an assured tenancy, and the landlord would be free to terminate the tenancy.
Held: The appeal failed. The 1988 Act, under which the rent now came to be assessed explicitly disregarded ‘relevant improvements’, but the improvements here had not been undertaken in this tenancy but during the original tenancy and no longer qualified for disregard. The provisions were not ambiguous, parliament could have made alternate provision but it did not, and it was not possible to read the Act to meet the tenant’s requirements.
Upon conversion, the Act provided one way of calculating the new rent, but the landlord could subsequently serve a further notice requiring a redetermination of the rent, and on that occasion the tenant’s improvements could not be disregarded.
Arden LJ, Patten J
[2010] EWCA Civ 425, [2010] WLR (D) 106, [2010] 29 EG 88, [2010] 18 EG 99
Bailii, Times, WLRD
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Local Government and Housing Act 1989, Housing Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
Cited – Trustees of Henry Smiths Charity v Hemmings 1982
A Mr Ludovici in 1977 took an assignment of the residue of a lease granted in 1953 which had some 5 months to run. He agreed to do works in return for which he would be granted a fresh lease. This was later assigned to Mr Hemmings.
Held: He . .
Cited – East Coast Amusement v British Transport Board; Re ‘Wonderland’ Cleethorps HL 1965
Under the section, the benefit of improvements would only be obtained by the tenant if carried out during the current tenancy. Viscount Simonds said: ‘If there is any ambiguity about the extent of (the) derogation (by a statute from common law . .
Cited – Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another PC 18-Mar-2009
(Belize) A company had been formed to manage telecommunications in Belize. The parties disputed the interpretation of its articles. Shares had been sold, but the company was structured so as to leave a degree of control with the government. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.408608