Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Landlord and Tenant - From: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 30 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Wagle v Trustees of Henry Smith's Charity Kensington Estate [1990] 1 QB 42
1990
CA
Dillon LJ, Denning LJ, Sir John Megaw
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant had used the premises for both residential and business use. He claimed that, the business use having ceased, he had the protection of the 1977 Act. Held: The Pulleng case required te court to reject the tenant's argument. The meaning of the phrase "let as a separate dwelling" had contracted and no longer included a tenancy for mixed purposes.
Rent Act 1977
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Yamaha-Kemble Music (UK) Ltd v ARC Properties Ltd; ChD 1990 - [1990] 1 EGLR 261

 
 Greenwich LBC v Discreet Selling Estates Ltd; CA 1990 - [1990] 2 EGLR 65

 
 Sparkes v Smart; 1990 - [1990] 2 EGLR 245

 
 Family Association v Jones; CA 1990 - [1990] 1 WLR 779
 
Pearson v Alyo [1990] 1 EGLR 114
1990
CA
Nourse LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Family Housing Association v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 779
1990
CA
Balcombe LJ, Farquarson LJ, Slade LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The association as licensee of a local authority granted what was described as a licence to the defendant to occupy premises on a temporary basis. Held: The court found that a licence granted to satisfy a housing duty was a tenancy.
Slade LJ rejected an argument that there existed special circumstances whereby the defendant, albeit in exclusive possession of the premises, was not a tenant.
1 Citers



 
 Stevens and Cutting Ltd v Anderson; CA 1990 - [1990] 1 EGLR 95
 
Edwards v Thompson (1990) TLR 43
1990
CA

Landlord and Tenant

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Citers


 
Longacre Securities Ltd v Electro Acoustic Industries Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 91
1990
CA
Dillon LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The term was to expire on 25 March 1988. The landlord served a section 25(1) notice to determine the tenancy on 1 March 1989 to which the tenants responded with a notice under section 27(2) to determine the tenancy on 24 June 1988. In fact the tenants vacated the property on or immediately before 25 March 1988 and refused to pay rent for any subsequent period. The landlords sued in the County Court for unpaid rent. The County Court judge determined that the tenants were not liable. Held: The appeal succeeded.
Dillon LJ said: "It is quite plain therefore, under subsection (1) [of s.27], that the tenant for a fixed term who does not want to continue his tenancy under the Act and will be ceasing to carry on business in the premises on the expiration of the fixed term is expected to give notice to his landlord not later than three months before the date on which, apart from the Act, the tenancy would come to an end by effluxion of time. That is in line with the need for a landlord to have reasonable notice of his tenant's departure, which one can find recognised in other provisions in the Act, such as section 24(3)(a) to which I have already referred. It is inconsistent, in my judgment, with the view adopted by the judge that if the tenant ceased carrying on business on the contractual date and left the premises he could do so without any notice at all because the provisions of the Act would automatically fall away. To my mind the key provision is that section 24(1) which provides that 'a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies shall not come to an end unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act'. It follows that the tenancy, which was a business tenancy that the tenant took under the compromise agreement of December 1987, was a tenancy which could be terminated only in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even during its fixed term. When one comes to section 27(2) one has the opening phrase 'A tenancy granted for a term of years certain which is continuing by virtue of section twenty-four of this Act'. It is submitted that that, in the present case, could apply only after March 25 1988 if the tenant was still in occupation, but the tenancy by virtue of section 24 is continued by the Act and is from the outset a continuing tenancy. Moreover, section 27(2) envisages a notice under the subsection being given before, as well as after, the date on which apart from the Act the tenancy would have come to an end; that is to say, in the present case, before March 25 1988. That necessarily shows that you cannot look at the tenancy as merely continuing by virtue of the Act after the date on which apart from the Act the tenancy would have come to an end. Subsection (2) envisages the notice given before that date, yet the tenancy is still a tenancy which is said to be continuing by virtue of section 24. That to my mind picks up the opening words of section 24, to which I have already referred, in the manner which I have mentioned. In the present case, therefore, my conclusion is that it was open to the tenant to serve the notice under section 27(2). The tenant was not bound to await the expiration of the landlord's much longer notice. There is no reason why the tenant should be regarded as locked in by the duration of the landlord's notice. But the tenant was not entitled to bring its liability to pay rent to an immediate end just by quitting the premises on the original contractual term date. That term date is subject to the provisions of section 24(1)."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 2591)
1 Citers


 
Montross Associates Investments SA v Moussaieff [1990] 2 EGLR 61
1990
ChD
Mr Thomas Morison QC
Landlord and Tenant
A covenant prohibited the lessee from carrying on a number of unacceptable trades and activities but ended, "but will use the demised premises either for the business of high class retailers of jewellery and/or antiques and/or luxury goods and/or travel agency or recognised bank the authorised name of which includes the word 'Bank'". Held: The words in the covenant "were emphatic negative than positive in effect".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 150
1990
ChD
Hoffmann J
Landlord and Tenant
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: "... I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to obliterate the conceptual target by using a number of words or phrases expressing more or less the same idea. I cannot therefore rely upon the language alone but must, as it seems to me, construe the words also by reference to the commercial effect which would be produced by one construction or the other."
1 Citers


 
JT Developments v Quinn and Another [1991] 2 EGLR 257; (1990) 62 P & CR 33
1990
CA
Ralph Gibson LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Contract, Land
The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out improvements in reliance on that assurance. Held: The plaintiff was bound to grant the lease in question. It is not open to the court to impose an agreement because it would have been reasonable for the parties to agree or because, if the importance of an immediate agreement had been more clearly understood at the time, the parties might well or probably have so agreed.
Referring to the AG of Hong Kong case, Ralph Gibson LJ said: "In that case, there was express use of the phrase 'subject to contract' and its effect was fully understood by both sides. In this case there were no such words. The right, however, not to proceed with negotiations for the contract exists independently of the use of that phrase, which is required, normally, in circumstances where an express agreement in writing is apparently reached which would constitute an enforceable agreement but for the use of that phrase."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1990] STC 657
1990
IHCS
Lord President (Lord Hope) and Lords Sutherland and Clyde
Inheritance Tax, Scotland, Landlord and Tenant
It was not possible in Scottish law for a man to grant a lease to a nominee for himself: (Lord Hope) "I have, as I have said, no difficulty in the concept by which the title to property and the beneficial interest are separated, the title being held by a nominee. There is no reason to doubt the efficacy of this arrangement where the property in question has some independent existence of its own... But I know of no case, and none was cited to us, where it has been held that a nominee may contract with his principal so as to create new rights and obligations involving no third party whatever which are to be held only upon his principal’s behalf. That seems to me to conflict with the principle that a man cannot contract with himself.... " and ‘The whole basis of a contractual obligation is the agreement of two or more parties as to the act or thing to be done. This is as true of a lease as it is of any other kind of contract. It is impossible to conceive of a lease by a man in his own favour. The essence of a lease lies in the tenant’s right to exclusive possession of the subject let, and the landlord’s obligation to put and maintain him in that possession. I do not see how a man can contract with his own nominee to the effect that his own nominee is to be entitled to that exclusive possession against himself, this to be held for his own behoof. The truth of the matter is that the separate interests of landlord and tenant are incapable of creation by such an arrangement" Lord Clyde: ‘But where the same person is both debtor and creditor in the same matter there can be no obligation created. It is in my view ineffective to enter into a contract with continuing mutual rights and obligations with oneself and it is whimsical to grant a lease of one’s own property to oneself (see Grey v Ellison ((1856) 1 Giff 438, 65 ER 990)). To attempt to grant a lease to a nominee for oneself seems to me a similarly barren exercise”. Lord Sutherland: “A contract of lease...involves the creation of mutual rights and obligations which can only be given any meaning if the contract is between two independent parties. [The nominees] had no interest of their own to enter into such a contract, any rights and obligations accruing thereunder being exercisable only as nominees for [the principals]. Under a normal lease the landlords cede occupation of the property to the tenants in return for certain obligations, but if the tenants are in fact mere nominees of the landlords the whole lease becomes a pure fiction. Accordingly, in the special circumstances of this case I am of the opinion that the purported lease is not a contract to which the law can give effect and must be treated as a nullity.’
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ward v Warnke (1990) 22 HLR 496
1990
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The owners had bought a cottage to retire to, but allowed their daughter and her husband to occupy the property. The daughter's marriage failed, and she moved out. The husband remained in occupation with one child of the couple. The couple had paid the outgoings and a reduced rent. Held: A tenancy had been created, not a mere licence. The fact that an agreement was between members of the same family was not conclusive to say that no intention to create legal relationships existed. The judge had been entitled to conclude from the evidence that exclusive possession had been granted and for a rent.

 
Lester v Ridd [1990] 2 QB 430
1990
CA
Dillon, Slade LJJ
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
A farm with 23 acres was let in 1902. The term passed to Alfred and William Burge, a father and son farming in partnership. On the later dissolution of the partnership, the house and five acres of land were assigned to Alfred and the remaining 18 acres were assigned to William. The house and five acres ceased to be used for agricultural purposes in 1982; but the remaining 18 acres continued to be farmed. The court was asked whether an assignee of part of the leased house would be able to acquire the freehold under the 1967 Act. The freeholder responded that it was part of an agricultural holding and therefore exempt.
Dillon LJ said: "One question to be considered is whether the effect of the partition, or of the partition and the subsequent assignment to the plaintiffs of their part of the land, is to create two separate tenancies of two separate holdings, each of which has to be looked at on its own. But if that is not the effect, it is still necessary, despite the partition, to look at the land comprised in the 1902 lease as a whole. If the land is looked at as a whole, the answer, in my judgment, must be . . that the whole of the land, with an exception only which does not substantially affect the character of the tenancy, is still let for use as agricultural land. If the land comprised in the 1902 lease has to be looked at as a whole the plaintiffs must fail because, on that approach, the [house] assigned to them, of which they desire to have the freehold, is still comprised in an agricultural holding." and that “an assignment of separate parts of leasehold property to separate assignees for the residue of the term is now-a-days tolerably rare."
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(3) - Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 1
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Southern Depot v British Railways Board [1990] 2 EGLR 39
1990
ChD
Morritt J
Landlord and Tenant, Costs
On granting relief from forfeiture, the tenant was ordered to pay the landlord's costs on an indemnity basis given the very particular circumstances.

 
Moll v MacGregor [1990] SLT 59
1990


Scotland, Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture
(Scottish Land Court) The parties had agreed a rent for an agricultural holding which was to vary annually in accordance with the Retail Price Index. Held: "The main purposes of the 1949 Act were to provide for security of tenure, compensation at outgo and a degree of rent control. The rental provisions are thus crucial ones which include a public as well as a purely private element." The court considered the mandatory language of the statutory provisions: "Having now considered the imperative tenor not only of the 1949 Act (as amended), but also of the subsidiary order governing rental arbitrations, the court conclude that it is not open to parties, whether under the original lease or any subsequent agreement, to contract out of the statutory rental provisions laid down in the public interest for arbiters to follow. These mandatory provisions, based on the open market criterion discounted for scarcity, were obviously introduced with a view to achieving some degree of consistency in farm renting. Parties can of course still agree on a new rent themselves and provided they act on this it will no doubt be effectively binding between them. What they cannot legally do, however, is to contract completely out of the statutory provisions so that, in the event of disagreement, one side or the other is deprived from having recourse to a rent review at the stated period and on the statutory terms. For that would be to reinstate the mischief which these statutory provisions were designed to remedy."
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949
1 Citers


 
Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk (1990) 61 P and CR 414
1990
CA
Slade, Nicholls and Bingham LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
Mr Monk and Mrs Powell held a tenancy of the council in their joint names. They fell out and Mrs Powell gave the contractual four week notice. Mr Monk objected that this should not have allowed the council to end the tenancy. Held: The notice had been effective, and possession was granted against Mr Monk.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Associated British Ports v CH Bailey plc [1990] 2 AC 703; [1990] 1 All ER 929; [1990] 2 WLR 812
1990

Lord Templeman
Landlord and Tenant

Law of Propery Act 1925 146
1 Citers


 
Barrett v Lounova (1982) Ltd [1990] 1 QB 348
1990
CA
Kerr LJ, Swinton-Thomas J
Landlord and Tenant
In a tenancy agreement for one year and thereafter from month to month, the tenant covenanted to do all the inside repairs and to leave the inside in good repair, order and condition at the expiry of the tenancy. Held: The decision of the Recorder that the circumstances justified the implication of a covenant on the part of the landlord to repair the structure, was upheld.
Kerr LJ gave three reasons. Commenting on the agreement in Sleafer, he said: “It is also to be noted that the Lease provided, by Clause II, that the tenant was to reside in the dwelling - that is to say, in the same way as here, that it was not to be used for any business purposes”. He then referred to cases where the court found the landlord of property where the tenants were obliged to contribute to repairs and the landlord was found under a co-relative obligation to carry out repairs.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Bostock v Bryant [1990] 2 EGLR 101
1990


Landlord and Tenant
When considering whether a payment has been paid by way of rent, the court looks to the explanation or reason for the payment, asking whether the payment is for exclusive use and occupation of the premises. In this case a payment by occupiers in respect of gas and electricity bills was not a payment of rent but rather payment of their part of the expenses of occupation.
1 Citers


 
Central YMCA Housing Association Ltd v Saunders (1990) 23 HLR 212; [1990] EGCS 154
1990
CA

Landlord and Tenant
A letting will not be protected as a separate dwelling where the cooking facilities are shared.

 
Englefield Court Tenants v Skeels [1990] 2 EGLR 230
1990
LVT
Lady Fox
Landlord and Tenant
Tenants sought to exercise their rights to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. The landlord had granted a reversionary lease of part to her husband. Held: The tenants took the freehold subject to the lease.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
1 Citers


 
Babbage v North Norfolk District Council [1990] 1 EGLR 202
1990
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The court considered the extent of its ability to insert conditions into caravan site agreements under the 1960 Act. The site licence contained two relevant conditions. One required that no caravan should be occupied between November 1 and March 19. The second required that all caravans should be removed prior to 1 November and none placed before March 20. Section 5(1) permitted conditions:
'(a) for restricting the occasions on which caravans are stationed on the land for the purposes of human habitation . .
(d) for securing the taking of any steps for preserving or enhancing the amenity of the land, including the planting and replanting thereof with trees and bushes.' Held: Applying authority, the court held that section 5 did not permit conditions which were imposed for purely planning reasons. The condition requiring removal could not be justified under either section 5(1)(a) or (d). It was imposed as a planning consideration.
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 5
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Javad v Aqil [1991] 1 All ER 243; [1991] 1 WLR 1007; [1990] EWCA Civ 1; [1990] 61 P & CR 164; [1990] 41 EG 61
15 May 1990
CA
Nicholls LJ, Mustill LJ, Ralph Gibson LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Contract
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down. Held: The tenant's appeal failed. It was inferred in the absence of any other material factors that the parties intended to create a tenancy at will rather than a periodic tenancy pending the outcome of the negotiations, since the parties could not be taken to have intended that the periodic payments of rent would create a periodic tenancy when they were not agreed as to the terms on which the prospective tenant would occupy. Accordingly, where the parties were unable to agree the terms of the lease and the vendor gave notice to quit, at that stage the prospective tenant only had a tenancy at will.
Nicholls LJ said: "A periodic tenancy is one which continues from period to period until determined by proper notice" and "When one party permits another to enter or remain upon his land on payment of a sum of money . . almost inevitably there will be some consensual relationship between them. It may be no more than a licence determinable at any time, or a tenancy at will. But when and so long as such parties are in the throes of negotiating larger terms, caution must be exercised before inferring or imputing to the parties an intention to give to the occupant more than a very limited interest, be it licence or tenancy. Otherwise the court will be in danger of inferring or imputing from conduct, such as payment of rent and the carrying out of repairs, whose explanation lies in the parties' expectation that they will be able to reach agreement on the larger terms, an intention to grant a lesser interest, such as a periodic tenancy, which the parties never had in contemplation at all."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Burke [1991] 1 AC 135; Independent, 24 May 1990
24 May 1990
HL

Landlord and Tenant, Crime
The defendants appealed against their conviction under the 1977 Act. Held: To amount to harrassment, the actions complained of need not be such as would give rise of themselves to civil or criminal action.
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 1(3)
1 Cites


 
Staves v Leeds City Council Unreported, October 4 1990
4 Oct 1990
CA
Ewbank J, Lloyd LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Ewbank J said: "It has been conceded in this case, as in earlier cases, that the internal plasterwork is part of the structure of the house."
Lloyd LJ said: "Once it was conceded, as it was, that the plaster was part of the structure it follows that there was a breach of the condition implied by section 11(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985."
Landlord and tenant Act 1985 11
1 Citers


 
Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others (1992) 57 BLR 57
9 Oct 1990
CA
Nourse and Staughton LJJ and Sir Michael Kerr
Damages, Landlord and Tenant
The claimants had taken an assignment of leasehold premises. They sought to recover for building defects. Held: The assignment was effective to transfer to Linden Gardens the causes of action for subsisting breaches of contract by M & H and Ashwell Construction and that the assignee could recover such damages as Stock Conversion could have recovered had there been no assignment.
1 Citers


 
SB Property Co Ltd v Chelsea Football and Athletic Co Ltd Unreported, 6 November 1990
6 Nov 1990
ChD
Hoffmann J
Landlord and Tenant
Clause 1 of the lease provided that the quarterly rent should be the higher of: (a) the amount payable by the landlord as interest on certain borrowings; and (b) 10% of the Club's gross receipts as defined. The question arose as to treatment of season ticket payments as accruals: "The typical payment which raises a question of time apportionment is the purchase of a season ticket. Everyone buys their season tickets at the beginning of the season. The ticket entitles the holder to admission to matches held during the whole season, covering more than one quarter. Is the whole payment to be brought into the calculation for the quarter in which it is made, or is it apportioned according to the quarters in which the matches take place?
Clause 1(2) provides for the correct sum payable to be certified by an auditor. One would expect him to do so in accordance with normal accounting principles. It is a basic principle of accounting, called 'the accruals concept', that the accounting period in which a receipt is recognised should be matched against the period in which the corresponding expenditure is incurred. In other words, a payment in the September quarter to attend a match in the March quarter should be apportioned to the March quarter, when the cost of putting on that match will be incurred. The fact that this lease uses quarterly accounting periods whereas the accruals concept is usually used in relation to annual periods is irrelevant.
This principle is so well established that I would expect it to be applied unless there was clear language to exclude it. Mr Scrivener says that there is. The clause speaks of 'gross receipts for the use of the demised premises received by the Tenant (…) in such quarter'. That is said to show clearly that what matters is the quarter in which the payment is received. I agree that 'in such quarter' would, as a matter of good English, most naturally apply to the immediate antecedent 'received by the Tenant', even though they are separated by a long parenthesis. But the words are also capable of referring back to 'for the use of the demised premises' and from a commercial point of view, that seems to me the more sensible construction. I therefore hold that receipts must be time apportioned by reference to the quarters in which the matches to which they relate are played."
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.