Lee-Parker v Izzett (1): ChD 1971

Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence of set-off at law to a claim for unpaid rent. Justice Goff discussed the case of Taylor v Beal: ‘I do not think this is bound up with technical rules of set off. It is an ancient common law right. I therefore declare that so far as the repairs are within the express or implied covenants of the landlord, the third and fourth defendants are entitled to recoup themselves out of future rents and defend any action for payment thereof. It does not follow however that the full amount expended by the third and fourth defendants on such repairs can properly be treated as payment of rent. It is a question of fact in every case whether and to what extent the expenditure was proper.
For the sake of avoiding misunderstanding I must add that of course the Taylor v Beal right can only be exercised when and so far as the landlord is in breach and any necessary notice must have been given to him.’

Goff J
[1971] 1 WLR 1688, [1971] 3 All ER 1099
England and Wales
CitedBeall v Smith CA 6-Dec-1873
Lord Justice James discussed the practice in the Court of Chancery on claims brought by people without mental capacity: ‘The law of the Court of Chancery undoubtedly is that in certain cases where there is a person of unsound mind, not so found by . .

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 . .
CitedAndrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
CitedGraham v Pitkin PC 9-Mar-1992
A delay in completion was not challenged by a notice to complete; mere delay may itself be repudiatory. Specific performance was considered. As to Lee-Parker v Izzett, the Board doubted the finding that there was no contract in that case, because . .
CitedThe Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Ubah CA 21-Mar-1996
The respondent mortgagee had obtained an order for possession against the mortgagor freeholder, referred to in the judgment as ‘the Chief’, who had, prior to the mortgage, granted a tenancy to the appellant.
Held: The landlord’s retention of a . .
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 . .
CitedBritish Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .
See AlsoLee-Parker v Izzett (2) 1972
A contract was exchanged subject to ‘the purchaser obtaining a satisfactory mortgage’.
Held: A contract which is said to be conditional, but where the condition is not expressed clearly or is too imprecise as in this case, may be void for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Equity

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.185861