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: 1991 To: 1991
This page lists 15 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Culworth Estates Ltd v Society of Licensed Victuallers (1991) 62 P&CR 211
1991
Landlord and Tenant
When considering how to measure the landlord's loss after a breach of the tenant's covenant to repair, the court may look to any reduced price recovered by the landlord on a sale after the end of the lease.
1 Citers
Killick v Roberts [1991] 1 WLR 1146; [1991] 4 All ER 289
1991
CA
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
The landlord claimed that the tenancy had expired by effluxion of time. The tenant alleged that the tenancy was a protected tenancy and that, since no written notice had been served on him pursuant to Case 13, he was a statutory tenant entitled to the protection of the Rent Act 1977. The recorder had held that, although the landlord was not entitled to rely on Case 13, she was entitled to rescind the tenancy agreement by reason of the tenant's misrepresentation. Held: The tenant's appeal failed. Where a protected tenancy was rescinded while it was still subsisting, the tenant did not become a statutory tenant, because there was no longer any contractual tenancy from which it could spring. A tenancy agreement procured by a fraudulent misrepresentation by the tenant may be rescinded even after it has expired by effluxion of time.
Rent Act 1977 2
1 Citers
Rous v Mitchell [1991] 1 All ER 676
1991
CA
Glidewell LJ, Nourse LJ
Landlord and Tenant
On a tenancy renewal, the landlord was found to have given grounds of opposition which he knew to be false or as to which he was reckless as to their truth or falsity. Held: The notice did not operate as a valid notice, and the tenancy continued undetermined by it.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Singh; CA 1991 - [1991] 89 LGR 75
Tagro v Cafanec [1991] 1 WLR 378
1991
CA
Lord Donaldson MR
Landlord and Tenant
In a case of unlawful eviction, the only valuation evidence was that produced by the tenant and such evidence was not challenged by the landlord. The grounds of appeal included the contentions that the award of damages was excessive and bore no relation to the loss suffered by the tenant. Held: "I accept that the damages do seem to be high, but I have to warn myself against using any knowledge that I may have gained in other ways to support that view, and I am quite unable to say that the judge was at fault. If we were to interfere on this ground, it could only be on the basis of sending it back for a rehearing designed to enable [the landlord] to call valuation evidence. It is not clear to me why he should have a second opportunity to call valuation evidence when he had the opportunity originally and did not choose to avail himself of it." Section 27(2): "provides for similar treatment [to s 27(1)] where there is what might be described as constructive eviction of the residential occupier as contrasted with an actual eviction, namely, conduct which is such that the occupier cannot reasonably be expected to remain, although physically he or she could remain, and the occupier accordingly gives up his occupation of the premises." It is inappropriate to grant interest upon damages awarded under the 1988 Act.
Housing Act 1988 27
1 Citers
Denetower Ltd v Toop [1991] 1 WLR 945; [1991] 3 All ER 661; Times, 05 April 1991
1991
CA
Browne-Wilkinson VC
Landlord and Tenant
The tenants sought to acquire the freehold under the Act. The landlord sought to exclude the gardens and other appurtenancies. Held: They had been included in the demise of the flats and were to be included in the title to be purchased. The l987 Act is 'ill-drafted, complicated and confused'.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 12(1)
1 Citers
Baglarbasi v Deedmethod Ltd [1991] 2 EGLR 71
1991
ChD
HHJ Baker QC
Landlord and Tenant
A counter notice under the Act, once given was irrevocable. Once a positive counter notice was served, the landlord could proceed on the basis that the tenant was willing to give up possession.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25
1 Cites
1 Citers
Bridgers and Hamptons Residential v Stanford (1991) 63 P&CR 18
1991
CA
Lloyd LJ, Nourse and Ralph Gibson LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered a notice which did not comply with section 25 in several respects. One defect was that it did not comply with 25(5) since it only required the tenants to notify the landlord if they were not willing to give up possession: it required the tenants to give a negative counter notice but not a positive counter notice if they were willing to give up possession. Held: The notice was valid. The court applied a purposive approach to the construction of the 1954 Act. "the only purpose of the positive counter notice is to introduce certainty into the transaction. By contrast, the negative counter notice serves another obvious purpose, since it links in directly with section 29(2) of the Act. If that is right, as I believe it to be, I ask myself next, what was the object of introducing certainty into the transaction in the case of a positive counter notice? Was it for the benefit of the landlord or the tenant or both? The answer to that question must surely be that it was for the benefit of the landlord alone." Accordingly the landlord could waive the benefit of the notice.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Cites
1 Citers
Irvine v Moran [1991] 1 EGLR 261
1991
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant took a lease for under 7 years, accepting repairing and other obligations. The question was how those obligations fitted the landlord's implied obligations under section 32, and the effect of the section on decorating covenants. The landlord argued that the decoration was not repair, that the statutory implied obligations were to be subtracted from the lease, and that the remaining express covenants had effect. Held: The phrase 'structure and exterior of the dwelling-house' did not mean the entire dwelling-house, or the building as constructed. The structure is that part of a building giving it its shape, stability and basic appearance, rather than to those elements which made it habitable. A separate garage and gates were not part of the structure, and nor were the internal plastering and door furniture. The windows, and the several parts of them did fall within section 32. The tenant's obligations to decorate the exterior of any part of the structure were covered by s32 because this involved a protection against the elements. Most elements of decoration would involve some element of maintenance.
Housing Act 1961 32
1 Cites
1 Citers
King v Thomas McKenna [1991] CLY 199
1991
Landlord and Tenant, Arbitration
1 Citers
Billson and Others v Residential Tenancies Ltd [1992] 1 All ER 141
11 Feb 1991
CA
Nicholls LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Equity
As to the exercise of relief in equity outside the limitation period: "This is not to say that courts of equity should now grant relief without any regard to the statutory provisions. Equity follows the law, but not slavishly nor always: see Cardozo C.J. in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation (1930) 254 N.Y. 1,9. On this we have the benefit of guidance elsewhere in the field of relief from forfeiture. Section 210 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852, which is still in force, limited to six months after judgment the period within which a tenant could apply for relief in the non-payment of rent cases to which that statute applied, viz., where the rent was six months in arrears. Courts of equity have due regard to this statutory limitation in non-payment of rent cases where the statute does not apply: in cases of forfeiture by peaceable re-entry, and' in cases where possession has been taken under a court order where less than six months' rent was in arrears."
1 Citers
Norris (T/a J Davis and Son) v Checksfield [1991] 4 All ER 327; Times, 23 April 1991
23 Apr 1991
CA
Landlord and Tenant
The employee occupied a dwelling belonging to his employer and for the better performance of his duties. He was summarily dismissed for misconduct. Held: The 1977 Act did not apply, and the owner had not been obliged to give a notice under the 1977 Act. He did not occupy the premises under a periodic tenancy even though he paid a reduce and regular rent. The term of the licence was that of his employment.
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 8
Crago v Julian [1991] EWCA Civ 4
21 Nov 1991
CA
Landlord and Tenant
[ Bailii ]
Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk; HL 5-Dec-1991 - Gazette, 22 January 1992; [1992] 1 AC 478; [1991] 3 WLR 1144; [1991] UKHL 6; [1992] 1 All ER 1
Billson and Others v Residential Tenancies Ltd; HL 12-Dec-1991 - Gazette, 22 January 1992; [1992] 1 AC 494; [1992] 2 WLR 15; [1991] UKHL 7; [1991] 3 WLR 264
