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: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 45 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
M and P Enterprises (London) Ltd v Norfolk Square Hotels Ltd [1994] 1 EGLR 128
1994

HH Rich QC
Landlord and Tenant
The freehold reversion on the lease had been divided between four landlords. Each landlord served a s25 notice relating to properties within their own area. Held: The landlords' notices were invalid. They had to relate to the entire holding. The notices were insufficiently clear on this point and left the tenant prejudiced by the uncertainty. The tenant's s26 counter-notice was however valid.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25 26

 
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Fumegrange Ltd [1994] 46 EG 199
1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The parties entered into an agreement. The plaintiff said it was not a tenancy, but a licence since it had retained substantial control over the premises by its ability to regulate the way the occupier conducted his business. Held: The agreement was a licence and not a tenancy because of extensive rights of control which the agreement gave the landlord over the premises.

 
Turner v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1994] 1 EGLR 134 B
1994


Landlord and Tenant
The landlord opposed the grant of a new lease, saying that he wanted to demolish the premises. It was known that he wanted to dispose of the premises at a later date. Held: The result required under the notice could be achieved with a short term lease. The landlord's motives were not relevant. The landlord had shown sufficient intention to redevelop, to justify the limited renewal.
Landlord and Tenant Act 19545

 
Fourbouys plc v Newport Borough Council [1994] 24 EG 156
1994

Morgan J
Landlord and Tenant
The lease required a rent review to exclude from consideration any rent free or concessionary period. The valuer took this to mean a 'head-line' rent with no discounts for any inducements which might have applied. Held: The tenant's appeal was dismissed. The literal effect of the words had to be followed. Any new rental was to assume that a rent free period had expired.

 
Olympia and York Canary Wharf Ltd v Oil Property Investments Ltd [1994] 2 EGLR 48
1994
CA
Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Landlord and Tenant
A landlord could properly refuse to consent to the assignment of a lease back to an original tenant in circumstances where the parties accepted that, if there was a re-assignment, the original tenant could exercise a right conferred on it alone as tenant to determine the lease. The clause read:- "If the Tenant (meaning only ICI Petroleum Ltd) shall desire to determine the term at the expiration of the tenth year thereof, and of such desire, shall give to the Landlord more than twelve months notice in writing ..." It was common ground that the break clause could be exercised by the original tenant on reassignment of the lease back to him. Held: The court doubted that this was correct. If it had been intended that the original tenant should be able to exercise the break clause after re-assignment to it, clause 5(13) would have been drafted in different terms: "One asks oneself why the right conferred by the break clause was made personal to Enterprise. There is no obvious answer to this. There could perhaps be a certain commercial logic in confining the right to Enterprise so long as Enterprise throughout remains the tenant. Enterprise could pull out after ten years if it wished. But if, meanwhile, Enterprise chose to realise its investment by disposing of its entire interest by assignment then its right to withdraw would lapse. However, neither party contended before us that Enterprise's right is so confined. Quite what is the commercial rationale which would revive Enterprise's right to terminate if, having assigned the lease, it takes a re-assignment, is not apparent on the material before us. Be that as it may, what is clear is that, had the intention been that at any time Enterprise was to have the right to end its liabilities on the lines now being contended for, clause 5(13) would not have been drafted in the form which the parties chose."
1 Citers


 
Dellhold Estates (UK) Pty Ltd v Lindsey Trading Properties Inc [1994] 17 EG 148
1994


Landlord and Tenant
The word "premises" in s 46(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 means the subject matter of the letting and the section applied to an agricultural holding which included a dwelling house. S 48 of the Act was governed by s 46(1) which applied it “to premises which consist of or include a dwelling”.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 46(1) - Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5
1 Citers


 
Hafton Properties Ltd v Camp and Another [1994] 3 EG129
1994

Judge Fox-Andrews QC
Landlord and Tenant
A reciprocal obligation may arise and fall on a landlord to repair the structure of a building from the principle that a landlord who takes the benefit of a covenant, for example to pay a specified sum for the cleaning of the demised premises, is under an obligation to accept the corresponding burden.
1 Citers


 
Estates Governors of Alleyn's College v Williams Times, 21 January 1994
14 Jan 1994
ChD
Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Landlord and Tenant
A scheme had been approved by the court under the Act, conferring management powers on managers. They were to consider applications for permission to construct new buildings, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Held: It was for the freeholder managers to show that his refusal of consent for a development is unreasonable. If the householder and managers found themselves in disagreement, it was for the court to stand in the manager's shoes only for the narrow purpose of seeing whether, acting reasonably, their decision was one they could reasonably have reached.
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 19
1 Cites


 
Little v Courage Ltd Times, 19 January 1994
19 Jan 1994
ChD

Landlord and Tenant, Contract
The pub tenant had an option to renew his lease, subject to agreeing with the brewer a business plan and agreement. He notified the landlord that he wished to renew but the landlord did not himself present any plan and agreement, or obtain one, but instead declined to grant a new lease on the grounds that no new plan or agreement had been entered into. Held: A condition precedent for a plan which was unfulfilled defeated a right to a new lease.
1 Citers


 
Nicholls v Kinsey Ind Summary, 07 February 1994; Times, 03 February 1994; [1994] QB 600; (1994) 69 P & CR 438
3 Feb 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The parties agreed a tenancy for 12 months, and thereafter to continue from year to year determinable by the landlord on twelve months' notice. An order had been obtained from the court to exclude the tenancy from protection under the 1954 Act. Held: The agreement and order taking the tenancy out of Part II protection was void because it was not a term of years certain. The term was a protected term.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Citers


 
Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society v Middleton and Others Ind Summary, 14 February 1994
14 Feb 1994
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Construction of particular Rent Review clause - rent free periods.


 
 Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc v Fowle and Others; CA 23-Feb-1994 - Times, 23 February 1994
 
Royton Industries Ltd v Lawrence and Another Ind Summary, 28 February 1994
28 Feb 1994
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
A covenant to pay rent does not include the maintenance but the lessee was bound by privity.

 
Graysim Holdings Ltd v P and O Property Holdings Ltd Gazette, 13 April 1994; Times, 02 March 1994
2 Mar 1994
CA
Lord Nicholls
Landlord and Tenant
'Occupation' by a tenant does not require physical occupation by him for him to have the right to renew the lease under the Act. A market operator letting all the stalls in a market area was a protected tenant.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 23(1) Part II
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v London Borough of Newham, ex parte Laronde Times, 11 March 1994
11 Mar 1994
QBD

Landlord and Tenant
It was unlawful to require an abandonment of a home before an appeal could be made against an award of possession.


 
 Arnold and Others v National Westminster Bank Plc; CA 14-Mar-1994 - Ind Summary, 14 March 1994; [1994] NPC 37 CA; [1994] CLY 2807
 
Caerns Motor Services Ltd v Texaco Ltd and Another [1994] EWHC Ch 2; [1994] 36 EG 141; [1994] 1 WLR 1249; [1995] 1 All ER 247
22 Mar 1994
ChD
Paul Baker QC HHJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court heard actions relating to the effectiveness of a solus petrol tie applied to two petrol station leases after the assignment of the freehold reversion. Held: They remained enforceable. The ovenants were not eforceable. The term Landlord included its assignees.
[ Bailii ]
 
Coventry City Council v Cole and Another (2) Gazette, 23 March 1994
23 Mar 1994
CA

Land, Landlord and Tenant
A covenant to pay a service charge imposed on any purchasing tenants was valid.
Housing Act 1985 Part V

 
Welby and Another v Casswell Times, 01 April 1994; Ind Summary, 28 March 1994
28 Mar 1994
QBD

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
To inherit agricultural tenancy, the tenant applicant must derive all his income from agricultural activities. The term 'principal source of income' didn't include overdraft or outside earnings.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 36
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua Independent, 31 March 1994; Times, 26 April 1994
31 Mar 1994
CA
Dillon, Leggatt, Henry LJJ
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Temporary housing may be treated as being settled, so an abandonment of it may be intentional homelessness.
The applicant had been accepted by Tower Hamlets as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, and given temporary accommodation. She refused a permanent place offered to her and was evicted. She applied to Brent who concluded that her refusal of accommodation made her intentionally homeless. Brent now appealed a finding against them. Held: It was relevant when looking at the provision of public sector housing to the homeless, that an authority had previously accepted her as unintentionally homeless. It could not be assumed she would reject any offer made. Nevertheless Brent had to make its own assessment. It had asked itself the correct questions, not only whether she had acted reasonably in failing to accept an offer, but also whether the temporary accommodation was suitable. Appeal allowed.
Housing Act 1985 65
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Havenridge Ltd v Boston Dyers Ltd; CA 1-Apr-1994 - Times, 01 April 1994; (1994) 49 EG 111

 
 Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hill; CA 25-Apr-1994 - Ind Summary, 02 May 1994; Gazette, 08 June 1994; Times, 25 April 1994; [1994] 27 HLR 368
 
O'Sullivan v Barnett and Another Gazette, 06 July 1994; Times, 25 May 1994; Ind Summary, 06 June 1994
25 May 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
An unprotected tenant, moving with his Landlord's family to a new house, didn't gain protection on move.
Rent Act 1977 12 (1) (b)(I)

 
Alexandra Palace Ski Centre Ltd v Haringey London Borough Council Times, 25 May 1994
25 May 1994
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Lease under private Act of land for free use allowed charging for access

 
W H Smith Ltd v Wyndham Investments Ltd Times, 26 May 1994; Ind Summary, 13 June 1994
26 May 1994
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
An original lessee remains liable after his assignee's trustee's disclaimer.

 
Estates Gazette Ltd v Benjamin Restaurants Ltd and Another Times, 27 May 1994; Ind Summary, 27 June 1994; Gazette, 22 June 1994
27 May 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
There can be no argument against the continuing liability of a past Tenant after an assignment of the lease. An assignee taking a lease takes the obligations for the entire remaining term.

 
Milverton Group Ltd v Warner World Ltd Ind Summary, 30 May 1994
30 May 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Landlord must give Tenant credit for money received from guarantor.


 
 Barras v Hamilton; OHCS 10-Jun-1994 - Times, 10 June 1994
 
Viscount Chelsea and Another v Hutchinson Times, 16 June 1994
16 Jun 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Underleases did not exclude damages to Landlord for being kept out.


 
 Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others; CA 6-Jul-1994 - Ind Summary, 18 July 1994; Times, 06 July 1994
 
Spath Home Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee Times, 13 July 1994; (1994) 27 HLR 243
13 Jul 1994
QBD
Harrison J
Landlord and Tenant
The rent assessment committee had rejected proposed market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the premises, because they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity. The landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of registered fair rent comparables. Held: The court set out the principles to be followed in assessing fair rent and considering different comparators: "(1) A 'fair rent' under Section 70 of the Rent Act 1977 is the market rent adjusted for the scarcity element under section 70(2) and disregarding the personal circumstances mentioned in section 70(1)and the matters specified in section 70(3). (2) There are various methods of assessing the fair rent, including the use of registered fair rent comparables and the use of assured tenancy comparables. (3) The method or methods adopted by a rent assessment committee may vary according to the particular circumstances of each case. (4) The rent assessment committee must consider, and have regard to, the method or methods suggested to them by the parties. (5) In deciding which method to adopt the rent assessment committee must take into account relevant considerations and give adequate reasons for their choice of method. (6) Subject to compliance with those requirements, the rent assessment committee is free to adopt the method which appears to them, on the evidence, to be the most appropriate method provided it is not a method which is either unlawful or unreasonable.
It follows from a consideration of those principles that a rent assessment committee is not bound to use assured tenancy comparable in determining a fair rent under section 70, although that method may be expected to be used increasingly in the future in the same way as registered fair rent comparables were used increasingly following the advent of the Rent Acts." It was open to a committee to adopt either the market rent or registered rent approach, or both, depending on the material before them, and that the absence of scarcity was no reason for rejecting market rent comparables. However, a committee would have to show weighty reasons for departing substantially from market rents recently agreed on similar flats within the same block, as in this case.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Church Commissioners for England v Abbey National; SCS 15-Jul-1994 - [1994] ScotCS CSIH_2; 1994 SCLR 867; 1994 SLT 959; 1994 SC 651
 
Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd Times, 10 August 1994; [1995] 27 HLR 78; [1995] 1 EGLR 72
10 Aug 1994
CA
Sir Ralph Gibson, Stuart Smith LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The duty placed on a Landlord by the section is to give to the tenant a notice of an address for service for the landlord in writing. Stuart Smith LJ said: "what the section requires is that the tenant is told, so that he knows, the landlord’s name and address in England or Wales at which he can be served with notices. If the name and address is stated in the lease or tenancy agreement without limitation or qualification, it is a necessary implication that he can be communicated with at that address and hence it is a place to which notices can be sent. The section does not require that the notice shall state that it is the address at which notices can be served. The mischief at which the section was aimed was the problem created when the landlord’s identity was not known and/or the tenant did not know of an address within the jurisdiction to which notices could be sent and proceedings served.
Provided the name and address is communicated to the tenant in writing, which it is if it is stated in the lease or tenancy agreement, there is no need for a separate notice."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Johnson v Felton Ind Summary, 15 August 1994
15 Aug 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A statutory tenancy was not a lease and the court had no jurisdiction to vary its terms.
Housing Act 1985 317 621

 
Hemingway Securities Ltd v Dunraven Ltd and another [1995] 1 EGLR 61; (1995) 09 EG 322; [1994] EWHC Ch 1; (1996) 71 P & CR 30
16 Aug 1994
ChD
Jacob J
Landlord and Tenant
The lease contained a covenant against sub-letting. The tenant created a sub-lease in breach of that covenant and without the consent of the landlord. Held: The head landlord was entitled to an injunction requiring the sub-tenant to surrender he sub-lease to the landlord's tenant. The sub-tenant was fixed with notice of the covenant in the head lease, which was to be treated as a restrictive covenant. Equally the subtenant had committed the tort of inducing the tenant to break its contract with the landlord.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Estates Gazette Ltd v Benjamin Restaurants Ltd Ind Summary, 22 August 1994
22 Aug 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Covenant in licence to pay rents extended to whole term and after re-assignment.

 
Blythswood Investments (Scotland) Ltd v Clydesdale Electricity Stores Ltd Times, 20 October 1994
20 Oct 1994
OHCS

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant
Landlords were entitled to terminate a lease for their own reasons when a statute gave them the right.

 
G S Fashions Ltd v B and Q Plc Independent, 28 October 1994; Times, 26 October 1994; [1995] 1 WLR 1088
26 Oct 1994
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
The landlord's forfeiture of a lease, having once been accepted by the tenant, the landlord could not then withdraw the forfeiture against the tenant's wishes. He had raised an estoppel precluding him from denying that he had forfeited the lease.
1 Citers



 
 System Floors Ltd v Ruralpride Ltd and Another; CA 31-Oct-1994 - Ind Summary, 31 October 1994; [1995] 1 EGLR 48
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1994] EWLVT 1
2 Nov 1994
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Duke of Westminster and Others v Birrane Gazette, 18 January 1995; Times, 17 November 1994; Ind Summary, 19 December 1994; [1995] QB 262
17 Nov 1994
CA
Nourse LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Land
A basement extending under the house next door means that the property with the basement is not a not a dwelling-house for leasehold enfranchisement purposes. The result would create difficulties with flying freeholds. "The primary purpose of section 2(2) must have been to exclude from the operation of the Act houses in respect of which the inability of one freehold owner to enforce positive obligations against successors in title of the other would be likely to prejudice the enjoyment of the house or another part of the structure." and the test of materiality under section 2 was to be assessed on the basis that "if the part of the house which lies above or below a part of the structure not comprised in it is of sufficient substance or significance to make it likely that enfranchisement will prejudice the enjoyment of the house or another part of the structure, whether by reason of the inability of one freehold owner to enforce positive obligations against successors in title of the other or otherwise, then it is a material part of the house within section 2(2)."
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(1) 2(1) 2(2)
1 Citers


 
Pennel v Payne and Another Times, 13 December 1994; Ind Summary, 23 January 1995
13 Dec 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
An upwards notice to quit given by the head tenant allows the Head Landlord also to determine the sub-tenancy. This is the case whether or not the subtenancy was granted within the terms of the headlease.
1 Cites


 
Iperion Investments Corporation v Broadwalk House Residents Ltd Independent, 06 January 1995; Times, 16 December 1994
16 Dec 1994
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Court was right to exclude Landlord's costs of litigation with Tenant from service charge indemnity given by the tenant.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20C

 
Overgate Centre Ltd v William Low Supermarkets Ltd Times, 16 December 1994
16 Dec 1994
OHCS

Landlord and Tenant
The interim specific implementation of a contract was inappropriate where there was a real dispute between the parties.


 
 Rees-Davies v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster; LT 31-Dec-1994 - LRA/18/1994
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.