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: 1999 To: 1999

This page lists 110 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Sight and Sound Education Limited v Books etc Limited [1999] 43 EG 161
1999


Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought compensation on the termination of his tenancy, but had vacated the premises several months before the tenancy was due to expire. Held: He lost his right to compensation at the double rate. S37(3) required him to be in occupation for the period immediately preceding the termination of the tenancy.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 37(3)

 
Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 531
1999
ChD
Sir Richard Scott VC
Landlord and Tenant
Shopmoor's predecessors demised premises for 150 years at a yearly rent of £100 on payment of a premium. A covenant provided that the tenant was not to assign or sublet without the landlord's consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. In April 1996 Norwich Union contracted to sale of the lease, conditional on a subletting of part, and sought consent. Shopmoor requested particulars and, in particular, as to the terms of the conditional subletting. NU answered all the questions and again sought consent. After more correspondence in November Norwich Union wrote claiming that Shopmoor was withholding consent unreasonably, and threatened proceedings. On 4 December Shopmoor's the agents told NU they would recommend refusal since the subletting would be at a rent substantially below market value. NU sought summary judgment, asking for declarations that the delay in giving consent was unreasonable under section 1(3) of the Act, and that it was entitled to assign and to sublet. Summary judgment was given. Shopmoor appealed. Held: In deciding whether a landlord was reasonable in not giving consent to an assignment, this should be looked at as at the time when the 'reasonable period' for considering and replying to the application expired. If it was then unreasonable to refuse consent, it remained unreasonable to give consent whatever followed. "In my judgment, however, the Act of 1988 has altered the law in this respect. It has done so by necessary implication, although not explicitly. The landlord has a statutory duty to the tenant within a reasonable time to give consent, except in a case where it is reasonable not to give consent. In judging whether it is reasonable not to give consent, the position must, in my view, be tested by reference to the state of affairs at the expiry of the reasonable time. If at that time, the landlord has raised no point and there is no point outstanding which could constitute a reasonable ground for refusal of consent, then it seems to me that the landlord's duty is positively, as expressed by section 1(3), to give consent. The question whether the case is one 'Where it is reasonable not to give consent' ought, in my judgment, to be tested by reference to the point at which the reasonable time for dealing with the application has expired. If at that point it cannot be shown that it is reasonable for the landlord not to give consent, then the statutory duty of the landlord is to give consent, the court can so declare and the tenant can, in my judgment, proceed on the footing that the assignment in question would not constitute breach of a covenant not to assign without consent. Accordingly, whether or not Judge Paul Baker QC was correct in his statement of the law in 1984, a similar statement now made would, in my judgment, be a correct statement of the law. There seems to me to be every reason of common sense why that should be so. It would enable there to be fair and sensible dealing between landlords and tenants. It would enable a state of certainly to be achieved at the earliest sensible moment. There seems to me to be no reason of convenience why the ability of the landlord to still keep in doubt the entitlement of the tenant to assign should survive any longer than the reasonable time which the landlord may need for considering the tenant’s application for consent." and “The Act creates a statutory duty requiring landlords to attend promptly to applications for consent to assignments, or underletting or parting with possession of premises comprised in a tenancy where there is a covenant not to do those things without consent.
It has done so by necessary implication, although not explicitly. The landlord has a statutory duty to the tenant within a reasonable time to give consent, except in a case where it is reasonable not to give consent. In judging whether it is reasonable not to give consent, the position must, in my view, be tested by reference to the state of affairs at the expiry of the reasonable time. If, at that time, the landlord has raised no point and there is no point outstanding which could constitute a reasonable ground for refusal of consent, then it seems to me to me that the landlord’s duty is positively, as expressed by section 1(3), to give consent. The question whether the case is one “Where it is reasonable not to give consent” ought, in my judgment, to be tested by reference to the point at which the reasonable time for dealing with the application has expired. If at that time it cannot be shown that it is reasonable for the landlord not to give consent, then the statutory duty of the landlord is to give consent, the court can so declare and the tenant can, in my judgment proceed on the footing that the assignment in question would not constitute breach of a covenant not to assign without consent”
Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 1 2
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Bhogal v Cheema [1999] LTR 59
1999

Sir John Vinelott
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered a claim by the landlord that a surety under a lease which had been disclaimed by the liquidator of the tenant company was liable for rent arrears. The surety replied that after the disclaimer, the landlord was obliged to mitigate the loss of rent from the tenant. The landlord had not taken possession nor taken steps to re-let. Held: "However, the landlord cannot be compelled to take possession and, of course, it will not be in his interest to do so if the market rent of the premises is less than the rent payable under the lease, unless possibly he takes the view that his remedy against the surety is unlikely to yield the full amount of the rent."
1 Citers


 
Hussain v Lancaster City Council [1999] 4 ALL ER 125; [2000] 1 QB 1
1999
CA
Hirst, Thorpe and Hutchison LJJ
Landlord and Tenant, Nuisance
The court considerd the liability of a landlord for the acts of racial aggravation of his tenant causing damage to his neighbour. The plaintiffs were shopowners and they claimed to have suffered severe harassment from tenants which included threats, racial abuse, the throwing of missiles and attempts to burn down their premises. They alleged that “the harassment comes from a number of identifiable people both men, including teenagers and boys, and women”. Some individuals had been prosecuted, and a total number of 106 was involved. Held: The claim failed. The acts complained of “did not involve the tenant’s use of the tenant’s land and therefore fell outside the scope of the tort”. A lessor was not liable to a lessee's neighbour, who was not a lessee of the appellant, for a nuisance created by the lessee, unless the lessor authorized the nuisance either expressly or the nuisance was certain to result from the purposes for which the property was let. It would not be fair, just and reasonable to hold a Council negligent in the exercise of its discretionary statutory powers under housing legislation.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Moustafa [1999] 2 EGLR 44
1999

Smedley J
Landlord and Tenant
A landlord gave notice to the original lessees of business premises, under section 17 of the 1995 Act. It was sent by recorded delivery to the lessees’ last known residential address but was returned to the sender by the Royal Mail. Nevertheless the landlord contended that there had been good service under section 23(1) of the 1927 Act. Held: The court preferred the approach in Galinski v McHugh
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 17
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Billson v Tristem [2000] L&TR 220
1999
ChD
Rattee J
Landlord and Tenant, Contract

1 Citers


 
Kemra (Management) Ltd v Lewis [1999] CLY 1373
1999


Landlord and Tenant


 
Banks and Another v Kokkinos and Another Times, 19 January 1999
19 Jan 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Where the rent-review clause in a lease provided an ultimate failsafe procedure to take place if the review had not been completed by a certain time, then the presumption against time being of the essence could be displaced.

 
Abbott v Bayley [1999] EWCA Civ 619
20 Jan 1999
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Appeal against award of damages for breach by landlord of covenant for quiet enjoyment and under the 1988 Act. Held: The landlord's appeal failed. "There is no fixed point at which it can be said that breaches of the covenant of quiet enjoyment become so serious as to constitute qualifying conduct for the purposes of s 27. Provided only and always that each of the specified preconditions of liability are found satisfied, then necessarily the claim for statutory damages succeeds. "
Housing Act 1988 27
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sheridan v North British Housing Association Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 648
25 Jan 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mehta v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and others; QBD 25-Jan-1999 - Times, 25 January 1999; (2000) 32 HLR 45
 
Anthony Beckles Wilson and Derek Plummer v Yeo [1999] EWCA Civ 660; [1999] EWCA Civ 754
27 Jan 1999
CA
Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Lord Justice Thorpe
Landlord and Tenant
The claimants were executors of the estate of the owner of the property. The defendant had had a sexual relationship with the deceased, and claimed to have occupied the property under a licence. He now sought leave to appeal against an order for possession. Held: The application showed no grounds of appeal which might succeed, and leave was refused.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Bedfordshire County Council ex parte Langford Action Group [1999] EWHC Admin 64
28 Jan 1999
Admn

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Whitfield Wylie Limited v Arthur Roger O'Brien (T/a Barton Presentation Services) [1999] EWCA Civ 693
1 Feb 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Passmore v Morland and Co plc and Others Times, 11 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 696
2 Feb 1999
CA

European, Landlord and Tenant
The court was asked whether a beer supply agreement which, as between the original parties, was prohibited by Article 85(1) and so automatically void under the provisions of Article 85(2), may, nevertheless, be enforced by an assignee from one party in circumstances in which, if an agreement in identical terms had been entered into between the assignee and the other party at the time of the assignment, that agreement would not have been prohibited. Held: A public house tie to buy its beer from one supplier, which was unenforceable because the supplier controlled many such outlets, could become lawful and enforceable when assigned to a company which controlled fewer outlets.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Purssord v O'Sullivan and O'Sullivan [1999] EWCA Civ 709
4 Feb 1999
CA
Nourse LJ, Thorpe LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Application for leave to appeal against rent possession order.
[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Ltd v Bairstow and Another; HL 4-Feb-1999 - Times, 05 February 1999; [1999] UKHL 2; [2000] 2 AC 172; [1999] 1 All ER 673; [1999] 2 WLR 396; [2000] ANZ Conv R 174; [1999] 1 EGLR 1; [1999] 1 BCLC 155
 
Roy Bloomfield, Marjorie Bloomfield v John Williams and Maureen Williams [1999] EWCA Civ 807
17 Feb 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995
1 Citers


 
Metropolitan Properties Co Limited v Max Wayne Cowper-Smith [1999] EWCA Civ 801
17 Feb 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Rothschild and Others v Bell (a bankrupt) and Another Times, 10 March 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 823
18 Feb 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The right of one of two joint tenants of residential premises under a long lease at a low rent to hold over under the Act, is a right in property and so vests in his trustee on bankruptcy, and the trustee can disclaim it, thus removing any right of possession.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part I
[ Bailii ]
 
Alan Greenbank v Jeffrey Pickles [1999] EWCA Civ 991
16 Mar 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Grant of leave to appeal.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Purssord v O'Sullivan and O'Sullivan [1999] EWCA Civ 993
16 Mar 1999
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Sportoffer Ltd v Erewash Borough Council Gazette, 17 March 1999; [1999] 3 EGLR 136
17 Mar 1999
ChD
Lloyd J
Landlord and Tenant
The landlords were the local authority, and operated a municipal leisure centre. The tenants were the tenants of a squash club and applied for consent to a change of use to use as a leisure centre. The landlords objected on the ground that the proposed change would damage the viability of their municipal leisure centre. Held: The refusal was upheld as reasonable. When considering whether the landlord had unreasonably withheld his consent to an alteration in the user of premises, the court must allow the landlord to take into account matters relating to other of its properties and to look only to its own interests: "I would find it surprising if a landlord could not reasonably take into account the circumstances of other property of his own, whether let or in hand, when considering an application for a consent to change of use under a lease. A shopping centre is an obvious example, but not the only case, where estate management considerations may suggest that one type of use be allowed under a lease but others not, because of the circumstances of other adjoining property. I find nothing in Balcombe L.J.'s judgment, nor in the case cited by him in relation to the proposition which I have mentioned, which suggests that this is not legitimate or that Sir John Pennycuick's decision in Whiteminster Estates Ltd is wrong. I therefore hold that, following Sir John's decision, a landlord can legitimately take into account considerations relating to adjoining property of his own, whether let or not."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sanctuary Housing Association v Donald Campbell Times, 01 April 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1030; [1999] 1 WLR 1279
18 Mar 1999
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe
Landlord and Tenant, Family
The claimant had granted a secure weekly tenancy of a maisonette to Mrs Campbell, which she occupied with her husband and children. Mrs Campbell then left the maisonette, leaving the husband in occupation. The husband made a proposal to the claimant whose substance was that he should be given the tenancy of the maisonette, but the claimant refused, saying that once Mrs Campbell was re-housed it would require vacant possession. Mrs Campbell was re-housed, although not by the claimant, and she then wrote to the claimant saying that she was giving up the maisonette and asking what she should do with the keys. The claimant's response was that she must empty the maisonette of her possessions before returning the keys and that until such times as the keys were returned she would be liable for the rent. Her response was that she could not do this because her husband remained in possession and had changed the locks. She enclosed her own keys with her letter. She asked to be given the opportunity to remove her own possessions from the maisonette once her husband had vacated it, following which the claimant wrote to the husband asking him to leave. He did not, and so two months later the claimant sued him for possession. Held: A wife who is a sole tenant has the full right to determine a tenancy even though her husband occupied the house at all material times, and even though this operated to deny him rights he would have against her under the Act. There had been nothing equivocal about the wife's or the claimant's acts and there had been an implied surrender of the wife's tenancy to the claimant. Lord Justice Scott: "If both tenant and landlord are unequivocally treating a tenancy as at an end the law has no business to insist on its continuance."
Matrimonial Homes Act 1983
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited Gazette, 21 April 1999; Times, 01 April 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1027; [2000] Ch 12; [1999] 2 All ER 791
18 Mar 1999
CA
Robert Walker LJ
Landlord and Tenant
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break clause. In construing an Act, regard must be had to the whole of the Act; and where the Act is to be read with another as constituting a code devised by Parliament to achieve a distinct purpose, regard must be had to the other Act as well. Held: In favour of the appellants, "on the distinct basis that the right to double rent conferred by s. 18 of the Act of 1737 only arises where (a) the tenant holding over after his own notice to quit is in fact a trespasser (thus, the notice must be valid), and (b) the landlord treats him as such." and (obiter) The principle that a party to litigation cannot 'approbate and reprobate' (or 'blow hot and cold') does sometimes curtail that party's theoretical freedom to plead wholly inconsistent cases as alternatives…..It seems to me at least arguable that by demanding and suing for rent the landlord was unequivocally treating the tenant as not being a trespasser, and that the subsequent amendment of the statement of claim to plead an alternative and inconsistent case should not be allowed to operate retrospectively so as to make the tenant's occupation unlawful…..I would regard it as an unfair result if in the circumstances of this case the tenant were liable to pay double rent under the 1737 Act as a trespasser in respect of a period when the landlord was, in correspondence and in pleadings, vigorously contending that the tenant was not a trespasser.
Distress for Rent Act 1737 (II Geo 2, c 19) 18, - Landlord and Tenant Act 1730
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Artesian Residential Investments Limited v Nick Beck [1999] EWCA Civ 1033; [2000] QB 541; [2000] 2 WLR 357; (2000) 32 HLR 107; [1999] 22 EG 145; [1999] EG 46; [1999] 3 All ER 113; [1999] L & TR 278; [1999] 2 EGLR 30
19 Mar 1999
CA
Hirst LJ, Mantell LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought relief from forfeiture under section 138 against a landlord seeking possession of his assured tenancy. There were arrears of rent which he believed he could pay. Held: The grounds for possession were statutory, and had been demonstrated. The action was not an action for forfeiture. "section 5(1) makes it abundantly clear that the order for possession ipso facto brings the assured tenancy to an end" and the 1988 Act was explicit in requiring the court to make an order for possession if the ground was made out. The landlord's appeal succeeded.
County Courts Act 1984 138 - Housing Act 1988 1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Howard and others v Kinvena Homes Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1037
19 Mar 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Application for leave to appeal - granted.
Mobile Homes Act 1983
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Geoffrey Allen and Another v Rochdale Borough Council [2000] Ch 221; [1999] EWCA Civ 1065
23 Mar 1999
CA
Lord Justice Beldam Lord Justice Morritt Lord Justice Mantell
Landlord and Tenant, Charity
Land was sold. It had been used as playing fields. The freehold and leasehold interests in the land were held by the respondent, and the claimants asserted it was held as bare trustees for them as charitable trustees for the school foundation. The lease in favour of the council had been discovered before completion, but the respondent had not disclosed it. Held: Any implied surrender of the lease by the council did not operate to creat an resulting trust in its favour. As to the part of the land comprised in the lease which had not been sold, that land remained subject to the lease in favour of the council.
Charities Act 1993 36
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mahmood v Rehman and Rehman (T/a Lahore Karachi) [1999] EWCA Civ 1109
26 Mar 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Barclays Bank Plc v Victoria Jestico Simon Peters [1999] EWCA Civ 1119
29 Mar 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council Times, 01 April 1999
1 Apr 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
It might be correct for a landlord to refuse consent to assignment where its objection to the proposed user was that it was generally undesirable, and there need be shown no necessary implication that the use would not be allowed by the lease.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 45
6 Apr 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Bhopal and Another v Walia Gazette, 08 April 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1089; (1999) L & TR 460
8 Apr 1999
CA
Swinton Thomas, Chadwick LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
After the landlord asked his tenant to agree to pretend to pay a higher rent for the landlord to give his bank, and the landlord sold on with vacant possession but the tenant stayed, the agreement remained a sham. The new owner had not made a proper enquiry.
[ Bailii ]
 
Parc (Battersea) Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) and An v Hutchinson Times, 09 April 1999; Gazette, 19 May 1999; Gazette, 31 March 1999
9 Apr 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
A tenant of a lease for 14 months, having agreed to exclude his security, granted a sub-tenancy to a business from month to month. The sub-tenant claimed security, but was held only to have taken an assignment of the tenant's rights and so was not secure.
Law of Property Act 1925 53(1)(a) - Landlord and Tenant Act 1954


 
 Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (ex parte Kellie-Su Quigley); Admn 20-Apr-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 321
 
Sharon Ann Lord and Catherine Elizabeth Haslewood-Ogram v Michael Norman Jessop [1999] EWCA Civ 1228
21 Apr 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The defendant appealed an award of damages for breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment. He said there had been a licence only. Held: The defendant was not to be allowed to admit fresh evidence on appeal. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Walker Cain Limited; Ind Coope (Oxford and West) Limited v Francis Joseph McCaughey (Sued As Frank McCaughey) [1999] EWCA Civ 1275
27 Apr 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Living Waters Christian Centres Limited v Henry George Fetherstonhaugh [1999] EWCA Civ 1269; [1999] 28 EG 121; (1999) 2 EGLR 1
27 Apr 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Arbitration

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Lomax Leisure Ltd Times, 04 May 1999; Gazette, 26 May 1999
4 May 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency
A landlord may exercise a right of peaceable re-entry without court action after his tenant company went into administration. It was not the enforcement of a security so as to be restricted by insolvency legislation.
Insolvency Act 1986 10(1)

 
Martin v Maryland Estates Ltd, Seale v Maryland Estates Ltd Gazette, 06 May 1999
6 May 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
A landlord served a s 20 notice and commenced work, but then found that substantial further works were required which it executed without serving a further notice. It was refused the cost of the extra work charged as a service charge.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20

 
Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh [1999] EWCA Civ 1402; [1999] 2 EGLR 13
13 May 1999
CA
Judge, May LJJ
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The claimant landlord had sought to assert that the let was an assured shorthold tenancy. On a rehearing, the tenant said no notice had been served under section 20. The landlord also now asserted non-payment of rent. Held: A notice which was invalid for the purposes for which it was sent might still fulfil some other function. The landlord's notice was sufficient. The court should then have considered as regards the claim of late payment of rent whether it was reasonable to make an order for possesson, the tenant being, by virtue of a late payment now in credit. There was no reason to interfere with what was an exercise of discretion by the judge. Appeal dismissed.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48(1) - Housing Act 1988 7(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Dr Vince Hines and Dr Prince Brown Being Trustees of Vince Hines Foundation [1999] EWCA Civ 1462
21 May 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Clickex Ltd v Jonathan McCann; CA 26-May-1999 - Times, 26 May 1999; Gazette, 26 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1416; [1999] 2 EGLR 63; (1999) 32 HLR 6324
 
Elias Hosany and Sheerinbai Hosany v Peter Lo [1999] EWCA Civ 1505
27 May 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Appeal against possession order in landlord and tenant action.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon Times, 01 June 1999; Gazette, 03 June 1999; Gazette, 09 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1470
9 Jun 1999
CA
Stuart-Smith and Laws L.JJ. and Jonathan Parker J.)
Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Insolvency
A provision in a tenancy agreement that the tenancy would cease upon the bankruptcy of the tenant, continued and became part of the terms of a statutory tenancy following the contractual one. The provision was not inconsistent with the idea of the statutory tenancy, and the term was implied into the statutory tenancy.
Rent Act 1977 98(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mohammad Yousaf Khan v Tilman Allister Mcroberts and Maqbool Ahmed [1999] EWCA Civ 1543
9 Jun 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 47
14 Jun 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Rose v Stavrou Times, 23 June 1999; Gazette, 27 June 1999
23 Jun 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
A court, looking to interpret a landlord's agents letter to a tenant regarding change of use, could look to other documents written in similar terms and used in similar circumstances in order to construe the instant document.

 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Sinclair Collis Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1651; [1999] STC 701
23 Jun 1999
CA

VAT, Landlord and Tenant
The commissioners appealed against a decision that the agreements under which the respondents hired out vending displays to shops were for the occupation of land, and so were exempt from VAT. Held: (a) the terms of the Directive are to be given a Community law meaning and (b) that domestic legislation must be construed as far as possible so as to give effect to a Community directive which it has sought to implement.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 50
24 Jun 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) (No 1 [1999] EWLVT 48
24 Jun 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]

 
 Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust; HL 24-Jun-1999 - Gazette, 14 July 1999; Times, 25 June 1999; Gazette, 21 July 1999; [1999] 3 All ER 481; [2000] 1 AC 406; [1999] UKHL 26; [1999] 2 EGLR 59; [1999] 3 WLR 150; [1999] EG 90; [1999] L & TR 469; (1999) 31 HLR 902; [1999] NPC 73; [1999] 30 EG 91; (1999) 78 P & CR D21

 
 Howard and others v Kinvena Homes Ltd; CA 27-Jun-1999 - Gazette, 27 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1568

 
 Cadogan Properties Limited v Mount Eden Land Limited; CA 29-Jun-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1709; [2000] IL Pr 722
 
S Singh S Jindal v M A Affify [1999] EWCA Civ 1780
6 Jul 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Appeal against possession order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Lionel Goldstein v Ronald Conley [1999] EWCA Civ 1815
12 Jul 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Canterbury City Council ex parte Kingsmead Venture Limited [1999] EWHC Admin 668
12 Jul 1999
Admn

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Dinglis Properties Limited v Treasurer [1999] EWCA Civ 1846
15 Jul 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Application for leave to appeal order for possession in housing case.
[ Bailii ]
 
Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1873
16 Jul 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 51
19 Jul 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 52
21 Jul 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Parks v Esso Petroleum Company Limited; CA 23-Jul-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1942
 
Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Gl) Limited (Formerly Known As Inntrepreneur Estates (Gl) Limited) v Dennis Birch; Johanna Mary Wasik; Anne Evelyn Birch; David Sharpe and Michael John Robinson [1999] EWCA Civ 1997
28 Jul 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal out of time.
[ Bailii ]

 
 North British Housing Association Ltd v Sheridan; CA 29-Jul-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 2021
 
Croydon Unique Ltd v Wright and Crombie, and Crombie Intervenors Gazette, 02 September 1999; Times, 24 August 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 2010; [2001] Ch 318
29 Jul 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The beneficiary of a charging order had standing to intervene in proceedings leading to the forfeiture of a lease even several years after the lease had been forfeit. It was an interest derived from the lessee's interest and a proper basis. The creditors not being told of the forfeiture in this case should not lose their charge of substantial value for tiny arrears.
Charging Orders Act 1979
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Billson; Findlay and Dr Ker (Trustees of the Gunter Estate) v Tristrem; CA 4-Aug-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 2065
 
Sylvia Sim v Acre Close Holdings Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 2073
6 Aug 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 53
19 Aug 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 54
20 Aug 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Bent v High Cliff Developments Ltd and Another Gazette, 02 September 1999
2 Sep 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
The replacement by a tenant of windows in a flat did not amount to structural alterations. The lease was clear as to what could constitute such alterations, and despite the different uses of the term in the lease, it clearly did not include either windows or doors.
1 Cites


 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 55
2 Sep 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 London (1967 Act Decisions); LVT 5-Sep-1999 - [1999] EWLVT 46
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 56
22 Sep 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Bater v Greenwich London Borough Council Gazette, 02 September 1999; Times, 28 September 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1920; [1999] 2 FLR 993
28 Sep 1999
CA

Family, Landlord and Tenant
The couple being joint tenants of the matrimonial home had applied for its purchase form the Council. Divorce proceedings commenced and she purported to terminate the joint tenancy. He applied to set aside the notice, and the Local Authority intervened. Neither the right to buy, nor the notice to terminate were dispositions of property, and the Court had no capacity to set them aside. Held: "It is now established beyond a peradventure that a right to buy is dependant on the existence of a secure tenancy to which it is incidental."
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37(2)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 57
8 Oct 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 58
18 Oct 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council; HL 21-Oct-1999 - Times, 22 October 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999; Gazette, 03 November 1999; [1999] 4 All ER 449; [2001] 1 AC 1; [1999] UKHL 40; [1999] 3 WLR 939; [1999] 3 EGLR 35; [2000] 32 HLR 148; [1999] 45 EG 179; (2000) 79 P & CR D13; [1999] EGCS 122; [2000] Env LR 112; [1999] NPC 123; [2000] L & TR 159; [2000] BLGR 138
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 59
26 Oct 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Durley House Ltd v Cadogan and Another Gazette, 27 October 1999; Times, 12 November 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999
27 Oct 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Rent reviews were to be at a percentage of the freehold value. Tenants improvements were to be disregarded for this purpose. The tenant sub-contracted the management of the flats to a third party who carried out substantial improvements. It was held that the improvements though not strictly carried out by the tenant, though this might not extend to improvements carried out by sub-tenants. A tenant who could demonstrate some direct involvement in the arrangements for the making of improvements to a property could be entitled to compensation on having to vacate the property, even though they had not directly carried out the works themselves. This could be in various ways, including the supervision of the works or the financing of them.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34 (2)

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 60
2 Nov 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Nutt and Another v Read and Another Gazette, 03 November 1999; Gazette, 03 December 1999; (1999) 32 HLR 716
3 Nov 1999
CA
Chadwick LJ, Thorpe and Morritt LJJ
Land, Landlord and Tenant
The parties had contracted for the letting of land and transfer as in personam of a chalet erected upon it. The parties having completed the deals could not then agree what was to have been paid. Held: The first agreement was void for common mistake and that the second should be set aside or rescinded in equity. They had both acted in ignorance of the chalet having become part of the land, and that though a statutory tenancy had come into being, it was right to unravel the arrangement even after some considerable time and after improvements.
Housieng Act 1988
1 Citers


 
Unchained Growth III plc et al v Granby Village (Manchester) Management Co Ltd Times, 04 November 1999
4 Nov 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The obligation to pay a service charge to a management company responsible for the upkeep of an estate of which the property the subject of the lease formed part was clearly integral to the lease itself, and related to the creation of the leasehold interest. No right of set off could be asserted by the tenants.

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 61
5 Nov 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) Ltd and Another v Langton Gazette, 17 November 1999; Times, 10 November 1999
10 Nov 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
A tenant defending an action for forfeiture of his lease for non-payment of rent could not in an application for relief from forfeiture, set up a claim against the landlord for breach of warranty. The court was tasked to see if the tenant could discharge the arrears within a reasonable time. Such a speculative possibility could not be taken into account.

 
Rogers v Lambeth London Borough Council Times, 10 November 1999; Gazette, 25 November 1999; (1999) 32 HLR 361
10 Nov 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A local authority landlord had obtained a possession order against the tenant, for arrears of rent, but allowed the tenant to continue in possession, and eventually agreed to the order for possession being revoked. At that time the tenant became a statutory tenant, and was deemed to have been so for the intervening period. The tenant then had standing to claim damages for the landlords failure to repair in that period.
Housing Act 1985 20
1 Citers


 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 63
16 Nov 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 62
16 Nov 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Hannon v 169 Queen's Gate Ltd Times, 23 November 1999; [2000] 1 EGLR 40
23 Nov 1999
ChD
Bernard Livesey QC
Landlord and Tenant
A letting scheme created a restriction on new building within the scheme, but was so phrased as to be descriptive not prescriptive, and the landlord was free to subdivide surrendered flats. In the absence of clear words to the contrary the landlord was free to build up above existing buildings. The restriction affected only development on a horizontal plane.
CS Bernard Livesey QC: ". . . the courts are reluctant to imply a term where, as here, there is a long and complex legal document drawn up by the lawyers in which the parties have crystallised the terms of their relationship. The conditions that must apply before the courts will imply a term in these circumstances were set out by Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernpoint) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1978) 52 ALJR 20 at p26 and repeated by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Philips Electronique Grand Public SA v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [1995] EMLR 472 at p481 as follows: for a term to be implied, the following conditions (which may overlap) must be satisfied: (1) it must be reasonable and equitable; (2) it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it; (3) it must be so obvious that 'it goes without saying'; (4) it must be capable of clear expression; (5) it must not contradict any express term of the contract.
To this, the defendant has suggested that a sixth principle has been added by Hughes v Greenwich London Borough Council [1994] 1 AC 170, that the courts would imply a term into a contract only where there was a compelling reason for doing so, which I accept, although it seems to me that this may simply be another way of looking at Lord Simon's second condition."

 
Tadema Holdings Ltd v Ferguson Times, 25 November 1999; Gazette, 08 December 1999
25 Nov 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A notice to increase rent could properly be served on a tenant even though he lacked mental capacity. Service of a notice must retain its natural meaning. A notice could properly be given where the landlord was named, and his address given 'c/o the agent' provided that address gave sufficient opportunity to contact the landlord.
Housing Act 1988 ,13(2) - Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1997 No 194

 
Dayani v London Borough of Bromley Gazette, 25 November 1999; 1996 ORB 1077
25 Nov 1999
TCC

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A local authority tenant of properties sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed period, even though the statute and cases were extremely old. Held: Interpretation of statutes given relatively soon after the inception of a statute and relied upon over centuries should be set aside only with caution. After a very extensive review of ancient statute and case law, the court noted that a tenant for life and a tenant for years were liable in damages for permissive waste for about 600 years from 1267. A tenant for years can be liable for permissive waste.
Statute of Marborough 1267 - Statute of Gloucester 1278 - Statute of Westminster 1285 c.14
1 Cites


 
Unchained Growth III plc et al v Granby Village (Manchester) Management Co Ltd Gazette, 25 November 1999
25 Nov 1999
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The obligation to pay a service charge to a management company responsible for the upkeep of an estate of which the property the subject of the lease formed part was clearly integral to the lease itself, and related to the creation of the leasehold interest. No right of set off could be asserted by the tenants.

 
Broomleigh Housing Association Ltd v Hughes Times, 26 November 1999
26 Nov 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
A landlord could recover under the service charge the full cost of works of repair to the outside of premises even though part of the works had been undertaken by the tenant, for which breach a waiver had been given, and even though other tenants having carried out similar works had had an allowance given against the service charge.
Law of Property Act 1925 148 (1)

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 64
1 Dec 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 65
2 Dec 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Grammer v Lane and Others; CA 2-Dec-1999 - Times, 02 December 1999; Gazette, 17 December 1999
 
Plummer v Tibsco Ltd and Another Gazette, 08 December 1999
8 Dec 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Where a tenant of a public house wished to assert that a clause in an option to renew restricting or tying purchases to the Landlord, he was not able to claim the benefit of what he also claimed was an illegal agreement. The nature of the obligation operated as a tie, which could include both positive and negative elements.
Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 (1989 No 2390)
1 Citers


 
Havant International Holdings Ltd v Lionsgate (H) Investment Ltd Gazette, 08 December 1999
8 Dec 1999
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
Two leases were given in similar terms to similarly named companies. An officer of one company by mistake gave notice to break the leases for each company but using the same name, and also when he was not a director of one of the companies. The notices were effective. The test was not what the landlord actually thought, but what objectively would be thought by a third party. A third party would have seen the mistake.

 
Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama Times, 19 January 2000; [2000] 1 All ER 975; [2000] Ch 234
9 Dec 1999
ChD
Neuberger J
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given. Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words 'any demised premises' in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: "In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do - see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands."
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5) - Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins, Same v Carell Times, 10 December 1999; Gazette, 07 January 2000
10 Dec 1999
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The presence of cooking facilities is an essential element in deciding whether premises could constitute a dwelling. Accordingly, a room in a hotel without such facilities could not be subject to an assured tenancy. A room with cooking facilities and access to a bathroom could be a dwelling, but the sharing of cooking facilities denied exclusive possession. Changes in circumstances did not operate to remove the necessity for cooking facilities to constitute a dwelling.
Housing Act 1988 1(1)
1 Citers


 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 66
15 Dec 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]

 
 Jones v Waveney District Council; CA 17-Dec-1999 - Times, 22 December 1999; Gazette, 17 December 1999
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [1999] EWLVT 67
30 Dec 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) EWLVT 68 [1999] EWLVT 68
30 Dec 1999
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Carl v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia LRA/33/1999
31 Dec 1999
LT

Landlord and Tenant

[ LT ]
 
John Lyon's Charity v Peter Shalson LRA/54/1999
31 Dec 1999
LT

Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers

[ LT ]
 
Speedwell Estates Ltd LRA/30/1999
31 Dec 1999
LT

Landlord and Tenant

1 Citers

[ LT ]
 
Risbylane Ltd LRA/25/1999
31 Dec 1999
LT

Landlord and Tenant

[ LT ]
 
Franks and Another v Towse LRA/2&31/1999
31 Dec 1999
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT - Premium payable for new extended lease of maisonette - Relevant valuation date - Value of existing lease - Value of extended lease - Tenant's surveyor expressing opinions as an advocate - Premium payable increased from £3,350.00 to £5,931.00
[ LT ]
 
Phyllis Trading Ltd v 86 Lordship Road Ltd LRA/16/1999
31 Dec 1999
LT

Landlord and Tenant

[ LT ]
 
Hyde Housing Association Ltd v Williams LRX/53/1999
31 Dec 1999
LT

Landlord and Tenant

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