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: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 47 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Micrografix v Woking 8 Ltd [1995] 2 EGLR
1995
ChD
Jacobs
Landlord and Tenant
The tenants gave a notice determining the lease on 23 March 1995 when under the relevant clause they could only have done so on 23 June 1995. Jacob J. held that, as the landlords knew that the date of determination could only be 23 June 1995, they would not have been misled, and the notice should therefore be treated as an effective notice to determine the lease on the correct date, viz. 23 June 1995. A notice to determine under a commercial lease is to be interpreted not as a "technical document" but in accordance with business common sense.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Pasta Place Ltd [1995] 1 EGLR 79
1995
ChD
Morland J
Landlord and Tenant
The demised premises were originally used by the tenant as a delicatessen. The landlord granted the tenant successive licences permitting the installation of eight tables for the consumption of food and non-alcoholic beverages, permitting the service of Italian wine for consumption with food and permitting the off-licence sale of beers, ciders and wine as well as the use of adjoining premises as a fire escape. Held: Morland J rejected the argument that the grant of the licences amounted to forbearance by the lessor: "The next question is can the plaintiff rely upon the proviso to override the general law? In my judgment, on a proper construction of the proviso, they clearly cannot. The proviso . . does envisage a landlord having a wide discretion in dealing with a tenant, but, in my judgment, it is a wide discretion in dealing with a tenant who has broken his obligations under the lease. . The proviso, in my judgment, has to be construed in a way to give purpose to the object of the proviso which is . . to give a wide discretion to the lessor or landlord. On the other hand, the words of the proviso are clear, that they are designed for the situation where there is either a breach or an apprehended breach of covenant failure to pay the rent . . This case differs factually from the Selous case . . where there had been a breach of covenant in the erection of toilets. . . In the present case, the three licences were granted before the date the rent review was agreed. There was no question here of any breach of covenant, or the giving of time to remedy the breach."
1 Citers



 
 Pennell v Payne; CA 1995 - [1995] QB 192; [1995] 1 EGLR 6
 
Lotteryking Ltd v AMEC Properties Ltd [1995] 2 EGLR 13
1995
ChD
Lightman J
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought to prevent the sale of the landlord's reversion until the lessor's repairing obligations had been met. One of the grounds was that on a sale the tenant's right of set-off would not pass. Held: An order was refused. Lightman J: "A tenant's right to set off (against any liability to make payment to the landlord due under the lease) his claim for damages for breach of a provision in a collateral contract which runs with the reversion is exercisable (equally with his right to set off a claim for damages for breach of such a covenant contained in the lease) not merely against the person entitled to the reversion at the date of the breach, but also against any successor in title. The successor in title acquires the reversion and the benefit of all covenants contained in the lease subject to all equities existing at the date of his acquisition. The much debated decision in Reeves v Pope [1914] 2 KB 284 in nowise stands in the way of this conclusion".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Australian Mutual Provident Society v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited [1995] 1 NZLR
1995

Hardie Boys J
Landlord and Tenant, Commonwealth
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The Court was asked whether a rent review clause which provided for an open review was inconsistent with the rent review being operable by the lessor alone. The lease did not contain a ratchet clause, or upwards only review clause. The judge had held that to construe the clause as operable only by the landlord was inconsistent with the absence of a ratchet clause. The words in the lease that the landlord "may" give notice requiring the rent to be reviewed had to be read as mandatory. Held: The court reversed the decision. Hardie Boys J: "With respect, we cannot agree with Barker J that the deciding factors in the construction of the document are the wording of the demise clause and the absence of a ratchet clause. In determining the construction to adopt, the Court must look at the document as a whole, rather than give emphasis to any particular part. And it must endeavour to ascertain the intention of the parties by reference to the commercial purpose, and to the practicalities, for the parties obviously intended that what they provided for should work in a sensible and realistic way. Those principles are not easy to apply in this case, for all there is is the sublease. There is no evidence of surrounding circumstances that may have provided some assistance in judging what the parties intended by the words they used. Nor is it suggested that the words used did not correctly record their agreement; there is no application for rectification or for a remedy under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. The case turns entirely on the sublease itself, and any inferences that may properly be drawn from it. But these are very limited. It is understandable that the sublessor may have desired rent reviews to be optional. It is equally understandable that the sublessee may have desired them to be obligatory. There are valid reasons for both alternatives. The same may be said of the short period during which the commencing rent is expressed to be payable, and of the unusual term of the lease. There are doubtless several possible explanations for both. Even if, as Barker J held, it is a reasonable inference that the omission of an express ratchet provision from cl 3.06(a) was deliberate, it does not necessarily follow that the parties must have intended that the sublessor was required to give a notice under cl 3.06(a), whether it wished to do so or not. It is quite possible that what they intended was that, while the sublessor would not be required to invoke cl 3.06(a) at each review date, if it elected to do so it would accept the risk that despite its expectations the result would be that the rent was fixed at less than the rent previously applicable. That approach may well accord with commercial reality."
1 Citers


 
Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd v Mandeno [1995] 3 NZLR 114
1995


Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant
A time provision governing the time within which the lessee may serve a counternotice is of the essence.
1 Citers



 
 Ganton House Investments v Crossman Investments; 1995 - [1995] 1 EGLR 239
 
Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [1995] 1 EGLR 97
1995
CA
Hoffmann, Leggatt and Simon Brown LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered the proper construction of rent review clauses in several cases. The underlying result which the landlords sought in each case was the same. Held: It was a most improbable commercial result. Where the result, though improbable, flowed from the unambiguous language of the clause, the landlords succeeded, whereas where it did not, they failed. The ordinary principles of construction applied to rent review clauses.
Hoffmann LJ discussed Lord Diplock's admonition that in a commercial contract too much weight should not be given to "detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words . . [if it] is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense" and said: "This robust declaration does not, however, mean that one can rewrite the language which the parties have used in order to make the contract conform to business commonsense. But language is a very flexible instrument and, if it is capable of more than one construction, one chooses that which seems most likely to give effect to the commercial purpose of the agreement."
Simon Brown LJ said that, having regard to the improbable result for which the landlords contended, only the most unambiguous of such clauses could properly be found to bear the landlords construction and that in the case of only one of the leases did the clause "unambiguously . . achieve the improbable result for which the landlords contend", though as to two fo the cases, "For my part, I would accept that the more obvious reading of both favours the landlord's construction. I am persuaded, however, that they are capable of being, and therefore, for the reasons already given, should be, construed differently."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Shortland Investments Ltd v Cargill plc [1995] EGLR 51
1995


Landlord and Tenant
The fact that a subsequent tenant was given a rent free period or was paid a reverse premium to take the premises, could allow a court to infer the extent of damage to the landlord's reversion caused by the first tenant's breach of his covenant to repair.
1 Citers


 
Eller v Grovecrest Investments Ltd [1995] QB 272
1995
CA
Hoffmann and Neill LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court set out the history of the development of the law relating to the availability of set-off in the case where a landlord has levied or intends to levy distress. Held: The law had developed, and an equitable right of set off against a distress for rent might now be available to a tenant.
Neill LJ said: "In principle . . I can see no reason to distinguish between the position of a landlord who is asserting his right in respect of arrears of rent by a claim for possession or by an action in debt, on the one hand, and that of a landlord who is asserting identical rights, but who is availing himself of the remedy of distress. In both cases the proper question to be determined is, looking at the state of account between the parties in the light of their rights under the lease, is any sum due to the landlord."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Little v Courage Ltd Ind Summary, 06 February 1995; Times, 06 January 1995; (1994) 70 P & CR 469
6 Jan 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Contract
The tenancy contained an option for the tenant to renew, subject to agreement being reached with the brewer on a business plan. The tenant said he wished to renew, but the brewer did not present a business plan or agreement, and then the landlord refused to grant a new lease, saying that no new plan or agreement had been entered into. Held: The tenant's appeal succeeded. The renewal of the lease under the covenant was enforced against the Landlord, despite the failure of the condition precedent. The brewer's refusal to agree a plan did not allow the Landlord to refuse a new lease. The lease should be read so as to make the plan and agreement a condition, only if one was offered by the brewer. Under that reading, the landlord would not be entitled to refuse to renew the lease.
1 Cites


 
Dean and Chapter of Cathedral of Metropolitan Church of Christ Canterbury v Whitbread Plc Ind Summary, 20 March 1995; Times, 07 February 1995
7 Feb 1995
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
A tenant holding over after his lease has to pay the market rent for property. It is by way of an action for the use of the property. Where there is a disagreement on the holding over rent it will be set as market value.


 
 Sandhu and Another v Ladbroke Hotels Ltd; ChD 17-Feb-1995 - Times, 17 February 1995

 
 Crawley Borough Council v Ure; CA 23-Feb-1995 - Times, 23 February 1995; [1996] 1 QB 13

 
 Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; CA 23-Feb-1995 - Times, 23 February 1995; Ind Summary, 01 May 1995

 
 Hynes v Twinsectra Ltd; CA 8-Mar-1995 - Ind Summary, 22 May 1995; Times, 08 March 1995
 
Lodge (T/A JD Lodge) v Wakefield Metropolitan Council [1995] EWCA Civ 41; [1995] 38 EG 136; [1995] EGCS 51; [1995] 2 EGLR 124
21 Mar 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation
The plaintiff had formerly been a tenant of the defendant under an informal tenancy. No rent had been paid since 1974. He claimed to have acquired the land by adverse possession. He gave evidence at trial that if he had been asked to pay rent at any time before the twelve years were completed, he would have done so. Held: A tenant in possession was during the subsistence of the tenancy entitled to exclude from the land the world at large, including the landlord. The squatter necessarily had the requisite mental intention of possessing the property for the purpose of adverse possession.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Paice Ind Summary, 15 May 1995; Times, 03 April 1995; (1995) 27 HLR 433; [1995] 2 EGLR 9; [1995] 44 EG 139; (1995) LG Rev 909; [1995] EG 54 (CS); [1995] NPC 46
3 Apr 1995
CA
Waite LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A dwelling subtenant of part of premises comprised in a business lease became a secure tenant on the surrender of the mesne tenancy. Section 79 of the 1985 Act had ambulatory effect.
Waite LJ said: "The use of the term "at any time" in section 79(1) shows that the section is to have ambulatory effect. Occupiers, that is to say, may be liable to pass in and out of secure tenant status - depending upon whether their landlord for the time being is or is not a local authority; or upon changes in the tenant's own circumstances taking him in and out of the tenant condition."
Housing Act 1985 79(1)
1 Citers


 
In Re Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute Times, 13 April 1995
13 Apr 1995
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Reasonable notice for revocation of licence longer for school.

 
Welby and Another v Casswell Gazette, 03 May 1995; Times, 18 April 1995; Independent, 14 April 1995
14 Apr 1995
CA

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
A farming tenant drew his income from farming despite living off his overdraft on a small return from farming activities. Held: The court should adopt a purposive construction. The right to inherit an agricultural tenancy survived if he worked and was dependant on the farm despite the absence of any profit.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 36(3)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Crawley Borough Council v Ure Ind Summary, 18 April 1995
18 Apr 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Encouragement from the landlord to one of two joint tenants to give notice to quit did not vitiate the landlord's possession claim.
Law of Property Act 1925 26-3 36

 
Sampson and Others v Wilson and Others Times, 19 April 1995
19 Apr 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Agency
A landlord's estate management agent was not jointly liable with the Landlord for damages for acts of harassment of the tenant committed by the landlord.
Housing Act 1988 27 28
1 Citers


 
Escalus Properties Ltd v Robinson and Others; Same v Cooper-Smith and Others; Etc Times, 21 April 1995
21 Apr 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Relief from forfeiture of a long lease at a low rent may be granted retrospectively.

 
Wharfland Ltd v South London Co-Operative Building Company Ltd Times, 25 April 1995
25 Apr 1995
QBD

Landlord and Tenant
A landlord accepting an assignment may not distrain against the new tenant for the arrears of a previous tenant.

 
Escalus Properties Ltd v Robinson and Others; Same v Dennis and Others Etc Gazette, 11 May 1995; [1996] QB 231
11 May 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Mortgagee is entitled to relief against forfeiture retrospectively. Sub-tenants and mortgagees can also apply for relief under s 146(2).
Law of Property Act 1925 146(2)

 
Salford Van Hire (Contracts) Ltd v Bocholt Developments Ltd Gazette, 11 May 1995; Ind Summary, 12 June 1995
11 May 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant
A distraint made against a vehicle on hire to the tenant was invalid, and the Landlord was liable. The modern day prevalence of the practice of leasing may be enough notice that a vehicle may be on hire to a tenant.
Law of Distress (Amendment) Act 1908 4(1)

 
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Atwell Ind Summary, 22 May 1995; (1995) 27 HLR 536
22 May 1995
CA
Glidewell LJ, Waite LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The tenant took on a weekly tenancy in 1975 of Wandsworth under an "Acceptance of Offer of Accomodation". The document made no provision for service. The tenant left for America leaving A as a caretaker. Wandsworth ended the tenancy serving a notice under the 1997 Act py post both at the property and at his address in the US. The tenant denied receiving either. The landlord claimed that service was deemed by section 196(2) of the 1925 Act. The tenant now appealed against the order for possession. Held. The appeal succeeded. Section 196 only applied to a provision in an instrument and did not affect a mode of service specified in an Act. There could be no deemed service of a notice to quit under the 1977 Act.
Law of Property Act 1925 1963-3 - Protection from Eviction Act 1977


 
 Kaur v Gill; CA 15-Jun-1995 - Times, 15 June 1995
 
Keepers and Governors of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon v James and Others Times, 07 July 1995
7 Jul 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A protected subtenant becomes a protected tenant on the forfeiture of an intermediate lease.

 
Proudreed Ltd v Microgen Holdings Plc Times, 17 July 1995; (1995) 72 P&CR 388; [1996] 1 EGLR 89
17 Jul 1995
CA
Schiemann LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The handing back of keys without more does not of itself constitute a lease surrender. The passage in Tarjoumi as to implied surrender would have been more correct if there was added the phrase: "or such as to render it inequitable for the landlord to dispute that the tenancy has ceased." Where a new lease was to be granted, any implied surrender would occur only on the grant of the new lease. The circumstances must be such as to render it inequitable for the landlord or the tenant to dispute that the tenancy has ended.
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Retail Parks Investments Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Scotland) Times, 18 July 1995
18 Jul 1995
OHCS

Landlord and Tenant, Scotland
Obligation to use premises as bank was enforced against a leaseholder wanting to close the business.
1 Citers



 
 Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance Co Ltd; CA 19-Jul-1995 - Times, 19 July 1995; Gazette, 06 September 1995; [1995] 1 WLR 1508
 
Friends Provident Life Office v British Railways Board Times, 31 July 1995; Independent, 14 September 1995
31 Jul 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant
An obligation taken on by a subsequent assignee cannot affect liability of original Tenant or surety. Variation of tenancy without intention to create new tenancy does not end surety.


 
 British Telecommunications Plc v Sun Life Assurance Society Plc; CA 3-Aug-1995 - Times, 03 August 1995; Gazette, 20 September 1995; Independent, 12 September 1995; [1996] Ch 69

 
 Spath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee; CA 9-Aug-1995 - Ind Summary, 28 August 1995; Times, 09 August 1995; (1995) 28 HLR 107; [1995] 2 EGLR 80
 
Proudred Ltd v Microgen Holdings Plc Ind Summary, 21 August 1995
21 Aug 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Landlords holding keys during discussion with receiver not accepting surrender.

 
Clifford Hart v London Borough of Brent [1995] EWCA Civ 4; [1995] EWCA Civ 4
23 Sep 1995
CA
Lord Justice Butler-Sloss Lord Justice Roch
Landlord and Tenant
The applicant sought leave to appeal an order for possession of the property he held under a tenancy of the local authority. There had been almost no rent paid. Held: After several opportunities to pay the rent, the arrears had merely grown, and could not now be realistically repaid. The appeal had no prospect of success, and leave was refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Capital Land Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Times, 28 September 1995
28 Sep 1995
OHCS

Landlord and Tenant
The service of a notice under the terms of a lease was not sufficient when it was not carried out in accordance with the terms set by the lease.


 
 Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Otter Holdings Ltd; MCLC 11-Oct-1995 - Gazette, 25 October 1995; Gazette, 11 October 1995
 
Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd [1996] 1 All ER 312; [1997] QB 858
24 Oct 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Hobhouse LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party. Held: The agreements were upheld, and were not shams even though they had been intended to work around the 1987 Act.
Criticising the anomalies under the Act, Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: "Nothing in section 12 imposes on the new landlord a duty not to dispose of his interest, such as is imposed on the original landlord by section 6(1). It is unclear why not. There is nothing in section 12 which gives the tenants a right to require a subsequent purchaser from the new landlord to dispose of his interest to the tenants' nominees. A limited right is given by section 16, but it is not equivalent to the right given by section 12(1) against the new landlord. It is again unclear why not. Counsel discounted the suggestion that an acceptance notice under section 6(1)(b) or a purchase notice under section 12(1) might create a equitable interest in the land capable of registration as a land charge or protection by a caution, and I am not inclined to disagree. But one could wish that the Act provided as many answers as it raised problems."
"A purchase notice must give adequate notice to the new landlord of the qualifying tenants' desire to purchase the estate or interest that they should have been offered by the original landlord. That is imperative, in the sense that it must be followed to the letter, but some of the other requirements of section 12 are only directory."
Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the work of the committee upon whose work the 1987 Act had been founded: "the committee intended occupying tenants to have a right to acquire the reversion to their leases when their landlord proposed to part with it, and that the ultimate objective was to give the tenants in a block where the majority wanted it a power to manage the block themselves and so to have a greater say in their own affairs."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kingston-Upon-Thames Royal Borough Council v Marlow Ind Summary, 06 November 1995
6 Nov 1995
QBD

Landlord and Tenant
Tenant not liable for rates after forfeiture - constituted termination of lease.


 
 Jervis v Harris; CA 14-Nov-1995 - Ind Summary, 04 December 1995; Gazette, 24 January 1996; Times, 14 November 1995; [1995] EWCA Civ 9; [1996] Ch 195; [1996] 2 WLR 220; [1996] 1 All ER 303; [1996] 1 EGLR 78; [1996] 10 EG 159
 
Graysim Holdings Ltd v P and O Property Holdings Ltd Gazette, 17 January 1996; Times, 24 November 1995; [1995] 3 WLR 854; [1996] 1 AC 329; [1996] 3 EG 124; [1995] 4 ALL ER 831
24 Nov 1995
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Landlord and Tenant
A market hall had been let to a tenant under a lease. The tenant fitted out the entire hall with stalls and entered into agreements with the stallholders, by which they paid the tenant a rent and service charge for services provided by the tenant. The head landlord served a notice to terminate the lease on the tenant, who applied for a new tenancy. Which tenant was properly the occupier, the respondent, the tenant of the enclosed market hall, or the individual stallholders with exclusive possession of their stalls? Held: The market operator was not a tenant protected under the 1954 Act. 'Occupancy' for the security provisions requires some physical occupation or use by the tenant himself. There could not be more than one occupier of the same holding for the purposes of that Act. The occupation by the individual stallholders excluded the intermediate lease from protection.
Lord Nicholls: 'first I must consider a feature central to the statutory structure: the requirement that the property must be "occupied" by the tenant. As has been said on many occasions, the concept of occupation is not a legal term of art, with one single and precise legal meaning applicable in all circumstances. Its meaning varies according to the subject matter. Like most ordinary English words ´occupied', and corresponding expressions such as occupier and occupation, have different shades of meaning according to the context in which they are being used. Their meaning in the context of the Rent Acts, for instance, is not in all respects the same as in the context of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
This is not surprising. In many factual situations questions of occupation will attract the same answer, whatever the context. A tenant living alone in a detached house under a residential lease would be regarded as the sole occupier of the house. It would need an unusual context to point to any other answer. But the answer in situations which are not so clear cut is affected by the purpose for which the concept of occupation is being used. In such situations the purpose for which the distinction between occupation and non-occupation is being drawn, and the consequences flowing from the presence or absence of occupation, will throw light on what sort of activities are or are not to be regarded as occupation in the particular context. In Part II of the Act of 1954 ´occupied' and ´occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by him' are expressions employed as the means of identifying whether a tenancy is a business tenancy and whether the property is part of the holding and qualifies for inclusion in the grant of a new tenancy. In this context ´occupied' points to some business activity by the tenant on the property in question. The Act seeks to protect the tenant in his continuing use of the property for the purposes of that activity. Thus the word carries a connotation of some physical use of the property by the tenant for the purposes of his business.'
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1995] EWLVT 2
1 Dec 1995
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation v Next Plc Etc Times, 05 December 1995; [1996] 33 EG 91
5 Dec 1995
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Trade fixtures attached by a tenant will not usually add to rent on review.
1 Cites


 
Doorbar v Alltime Securities Ltd Ind Summary, 18 December 1995; Gazette, 17 January 1996; Times, 07 December 1995
18 Dec 1995
CA

Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant
Landlord bound by voluntary arrangement on future rent despite disagreement. A meeting chairman has power to impose 'agreed' value on claim to allow vote to creditor.
Insolvency Rules 1986 5 17(3)


 
 Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd; CA 29-Dec-1995 - Times, 29 December 1995; Independent, 25 January 1996; [1996] Ch 286
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.