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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 82 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group Plc [2000] STC 033
2000
ChD
Park J
Landlord and Tenant, VAT
The taxpayer sought to recover tax it had paid on VAT on rents. It had sublet and at first not charged VAT, but later changed its mind and charged VAT. The Commissioners objected to the reclaim for the earlier period. Held: The tribunal's conclusion was that the direct and immediate link which was required was missing, but the direct and immediate link was not missing. It considered that the quarterly rental payments which RSA made during the vacant unelected periods secured for it a series of separate inputs, each of which lasted for only three months. The court did not accept this analysis. RSA's superior lease of each property was one input, not a multiplicity of separate short-term inputs, and all RSA's payments of rents (including service charge rents) during the vacant unelected periods were cost components of the input.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Wells Fashion Group Ltd v General Accient Life Assurance Limited [2000] EGCS 45
2000


Landlord and Tenant
On the renewal of a lease, the landlord asked that the tenant be required to provide an authorised guarantor. The tenant proposed one be required only where it was reasonable to do so. Held: The tenant's proposal was preferred.

 
Webb v Sandown Sports Club Ltd [2000] EGCS 13
2000


Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought to argue that having vacated the premises before the end of the lease, he had surrendered and there was no continuing statutory tenancy under which he might be liable to pay rent. Held: The tenant had left various items in the premises including papers and stock. The effective date of quitting would be the date upon which these were removed, and not before.

 
Craven Builders Ltd v Secretary of State for Health [2000] 1 EGLR 128
2000

Neuberger J
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered the measure of damages for a tenant's failure to comply with his covenant to repair where the premises did have redevelopment potential but a purchaser would still pay more if the premises were in a good state of repair.
Neuberger J said: "In a case where the landlord has carried out the works or clearly intends to carry out the works then the cost of the works is, or at the very least can be, prima facie evidence of the diminution in value. However in a case where the landlord has not carried out the works, and there is no evidence that he intends to carry them out, then the cost of the works is of no assistance. One cannot say that a costed schedule of dilapidations of itself, in the absence of any other evidence, constitutes even prima facie evidence of the diminution in the value of the reversion, let alone that there is any sort of prima face evidence of the actual diminution."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)
1 Citers


 
Arundel Corporation Ltd v Financial Trading Company Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 456
2000


Landlord and Tenant
The parties had started the renewal procedures under the 1954 Act. After the end of the contractual term, the tenant handed in the keys and purported to surrender the lease at common law. He did nothing to discontinue the proceedings. Held: The continuation of the tenancy under the Act did not prevent the possibility of a common law surrender.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

 
London Baggage v Railtrack plc [2000] EGCS 57
2000
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
The landlord served a statutory notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant failed to serve a counternotice and lost his statutory protection. The landlord allowed the tenant to hold over under a tenancy at will. Held: The holding over did not create a new lease binding of the landlord. There had been a common intention only to create a tenancy at will whilst negotiations allowed agreement of terms and an application to the court to have the replacement tenancy excluded from protection.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Citers


 
Coville v Adeptus Ltd [2000] 80 P&CR D14
2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The tenant had originally occupied the premises under a business and residential tenancy. The property decayed, and the business failed. She sought a new tenancy under the 1954 Act. Held: The test of business use was at the time of the application for the new tenancy. At that time, though her occupation had been continuous, at the relevant time the property was not occupied for the purposes of a business, and she had no security.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

 
Inntrepreneur Pub Co v East Crown Ltd [2000] 3 EGLR 31; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 11
2000

Lightman J
Landlord and Tenant
The "entire agreement" clause contained in a lease not only had the effect of rendering evidence of an alleged collateral warranty inadmissible, but also deprived the warranty of all legal effect. It did not collapse the lease in on itself. Lightman J said: "The purpose of an entire agreement clause is to preclude a party to a written agreement from threshing through the undergrowth and finding in the course of negotiations some (chance) remark or statement (often long forgotten or difficult to recall or explain) on which to found a claim such as the present to the existence of a collateral warranty. The entire agreement clause obviates the occasion for any such search and the peril to the contracting parties posed by the need which may arise in its absence to conduct such a search. For such a clause constitutes a binding agreement between the parties that the full contractual terms are to be found in the document containing the clause and not elsewhere, and that accordingly any promises or assurances made in the course of the negotiations (which in the absence of such a clause might have effect as a collateral warranty) shall have no contractual force, save insofar as they are reflected and given effect in that document. The operation of the clause is not to render evidence of the collateral warranty inadmissible in evidence as is suggested in Chitty on Contract 28th ed. Vol 1 para 12–102: it is to denude what would otherwise constitute a collateral warranty of legal effect."
Lightman J continued: "In neither case was it necessary to decide whether the clause would have been sufficient if it had been worded merely to state that the agreement containing it comprised or constituted the entire agreement between the parties. That is the question raised in this case, where the formula of words used in the clause is abbreviated to an acknowledgement by the parties that the Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between them. In my judgment that formula is sufficient, for it constitutes an agreement that the full contractual terms to which the parties agree to bind themselves are to be found in the Agreement and nowhere else and that what might otherwise constitute a side agreement or collateral warranty shall be void of legal effect. That can be the only purpose of the provision."
Law of eroperty (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1)
1 Citers



 
 Phyllis Trading Ltd v 86 Lordship Road Ltd; LT 11-Jan-2000 - [2000] EWLands LRA_16_1999

 
 Regina, Ex Parte Spath Holme Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and The Regions, Secretary of State For Wales; CA 20-Jan-2000 - Times, 15 February 2000
 
Target Home Loans Ltd v Iza Ltd Gazette, 20 January 2000
20 Jan 2000
CC

Landlord and Tenant, Land
(Central London County Court) The bank recovered possession of leasehold premises. The landlord served a notice requiring repairs on the tenant, but refused to allow the mortgage in possession a key to enter the property. They then claimed to have recovered possession peacefully. The bank applied for relief from forfeiture and succeeded. The notice was pointlessly served on the tenant who no longer had access to carry out any repairs, and the counter-notice was effective.
Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938

 
Ultraworth Ltd v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation [2000] EWHC Technology 172; [2000] L & TR 495; [2000] 2 EGLR 115; [2000] EG 19
27 Jan 2000
TCC
Richard Hevery QC J
Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Lansdowne Tutors Ltd v Younger Gazette, 27 January 2000
27 Jan 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Companies with shareholdings owned by the same individual granted one to the other an agreement which was deemed to be a protected interest as a lease of the premises. Eventually the landlord company served a notice to quit on the tenant company which appeared to have been accepted. Nevertheless later the tenant company resisted possession being given. It was held that common ownership did not destroy the effect of the various acts which included acts unequivocally consistent with a surrender.
1 Citers



 
 Barrett and others v Morgan; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 10 February 2000; [2000] 2 WLR 285; [2000] UKHL 1; [2000] 2 AC 264; [2000] 1 All ER 481

 
 VCS Car Park Management v Regional Railways North East Ltd; CA 27-Jan-2000 - Gazette, 27 January 2000; Times, 11 January 2000; [1999] EGCS 136

 
 Burton v London Borough of Camden; HL 27-Jan-2000 - Times, 23 February 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; [2000] 2 WLR 427; [2000] UKHL 8; [2000] 2 AC 399; [2000] 1 All ER 943; (2000) 79 P & CR D38; [2000] 1 EGLR 49; [2000] 14 EG 149; [2000] 1 FCR 481; [2000] NPC 16; (2000) 32 HLR 625; [2000] L & TR 235; [2000] BLGR 289; [2000] EG 23
 
Highland and Universal Properties Limited v Safeway Properties Limited Times, 22 March 2000; [2000] ScotCS 28
1 Feb 2000
IHCS
Lord President
Landlord and Tenant, Scotland
In a case where a lease imposes a sufficiently precise 'keep open' clause, it might well be enforced by way of a specific implement. The Scottish order would not carry the same potential penalties as in England, but such orders had not created great problems. The wording of the order would also have to be precise to support as far as possible the need for clarity if it was to be enforced. The pursuer should not be restricted to a payment of damages.
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]

 
 Gatwick Parking Service Ltd v Sargent; CA 3-Feb-2000 - Gazette, 03 February 2000; [2000] EG 11; [2000] 2 EGLR 45
 
Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council Times, 03 February 2000
3 Feb 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after giving consent, later insist fully on compliance with the covenant by the incoming tenant. Three principles govern refusing consent are: is the reason unconnected with the relationship of landlord and tenant, if not the court asks whether it is reasonable in the particular circumstances, and last, it is for the landlord to establish that his refusal is reasonable.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Anthony Wroe (T/a Telepower) v Exmos Cover Limited; CA 8-Feb-2000 - Gazette, 24 February 2000; Times, 14 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 31
 
The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District v Palacegate Properties Ltd Gazette, 02 March 2000; Times, 21 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 33; [2000] 13 EG 187
9 Feb 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
A prospective landlord and tenant applied to have the proposed tenancy excluded from security of tenure. The draft appended to the application had blanks for the dates, and a break clause. Held: The intention was to demonstrate the parties understanding of what they might be losing by way of security, and that the lease need only be substantially of the same form as the draft. In addition the break clause did not prevent the lease being for a term certain. The lease was excluded from security depite the break clause.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 38 (4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Dearman v Simpletest Ltd; CA 14-Feb-2000 - Times, 14 February 2000

 
 London (1967 Act Decisions); LVT 14-Feb-2000 - [2000] EWLVT 69
 
Kathleen Saigol v Cranley Mansion Ltd and Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 52
23 Feb 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The respondent had had a successful life, and was tenant of a valuable apartment in the freehold block owned and managed by the appellant company. Substantial refurbishments had been badly handled by a trainee surveyor. There was a dispue with the builder who walked off the site. The work was wrongly certified as complete. Both partes had ended up insolvent. Part of the works was a chimney which later collapsed making the flat uninhabitable. Held: The judge had found the claimant to have been truthful and the case was decided accordingly. Appeal denied.
[ Bailii ]
 
Eyre and others v McCracken [2000] EWCA Civ 501; (2000) 80 P&CR 220
10 Mar 2000
CA
Pill LJ, Hale LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered the tenant's covenant to repair in the context of a need for a damp course: "I have regard to the age, (over 150 years) and the design of the building. It has no damp-proof course . . I bear in mind the limited interest of the tenant and the poor condition of the premises . . when the term started. It is common ground that it would be sensible to put in a damp-proof course. . . In my judgment, to require the tenant to insert a damp-proof course . . would be to require him to give back to the landlord a different thing from that [originally] demised to him . . The circumstances are very different from those involved in the consideration of the landlord's covenant in Elmcroft Developments." Hale LJ said that the question of whether "admittedly sensible works fall within [a] particular repairing covenant" was "in every case a matter of fact and degree", depending also on the wording of the covenant in question.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Willingale v Global Grange Ltd; CA 13-Mar-2000 - Gazette, 23 March 2000; Times, 29 March 2000; [2000] 2 EGLR 55
 
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary of State for et Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 14 March 2000
14 Mar 2000
CA

Constitutional, Planning, Landlord and Tenant
An Act might include a power to amend another by secondary legislation, but any such power must be construed narrowly. The owners of property sought to change its use from long term residential use to a use for short term visitors. S25 of the main Act remained unaffected by subsequent secondary legislation.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172 - Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 25

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 70
14 Mar 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Botu v London Borough of Brent Gazette, 16 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The secure tenant was sentenced to imprisonment. In the absence of the tenant, and payment of his rent, the landlord authority obtained an order for possession which was not suspended. On release the tenant had the order set aside, but the house had been relet. He claimed damages for breach of the covenant for quiet possession, and was awarded those from a certain date. On appeal the order was set aside. The authority in relating had acted properly under an order of the court.

 
North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 71
20 Mar 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Shepping and another v Osada Times, 23 March 2000
23 Mar 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The time limit on the recovery of possession of property subject to a tenancy to within one year of the landlord becoming aware of the death of the tenant required proceedings to have been issued within the year. The service of the notice requiring possession did not satisfy the requirement which was strictly for proceedings.
Housing Act 1988 Sch2 Part 1 Ground 7

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 72
23 Mar 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Crawford v Clarke Gazette, 23 March 2000
23 Mar 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The tenants had carried out certain works, but had failed to complete them and were served with s146 notices requiring them to complete the works. The works were not completed and the property was forfeited. Relief against forfeiture was granted on condition that the tenant complied with schedules for the works. He failed and was granted relief and again failed. The judge awarded possession resulting in a windfall for the landlord. An appeal failed since the judge had exercised a discretion which was only rarely to be interfered with.


 
 Hurst v Bryk and others; HL 30-Mar-2000 - Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 04 April 2000; [2000] UKHL 19; [2000] 2 All ER 193
 
Brent London Borough Council v Botu Gazette, 30 March 2000
30 Mar 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
In the absence of a secure tenant, and payment of his rent, the landlord authority obtained an order for possession which was not suspended. On release the tenant had the order set aside, but the house had been relet. He claimed damages for breach of the covenant for quiet possession, and was awarded those from a certain date. On appeal the order was set aside. The authority in relating had acted properly under an order of the court.

 
Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club Ltd v Pope Times, 07 June 2000; [2000] 22 EG 147; [2000] 1 WLR 1941; [2000] EWCA Civ 425
6 Apr 2000
CA
Morritt LJ, Waller LJ, Tucker LJ
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought to assert that he occupied a houseboat, the Dinty Moore, under a tenancy of a dwellinghouse under the 1988 Act. The claimant appealed a decision that it was. Held: A house-boat, even though used as a dwelling, did not have the character of a house sufficiently to allow an assured tenancy of it to arise. This could only happen if the boat itself became affixed to the land so as to become part of it. In this case the boat would float for several hours each day as the tide rose, and the boat could quite easily be moved to a different mooring. It was a chattel and was not inherently capable of becoming real property.
Housing Act 1988
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Floyer-Acland and others v Osmond [2000] EWCA Civ 110
6 Apr 2000
CA
Morritt, Schiemann LJJ
Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

[ Bailii ]
 
Aylwen v Takla [2000] EWCA Civ 108
6 Apr 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation
The parties disputed ownership of a box room used with an apartment.
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 73
7 Apr 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Standard Life Company Ltd v Greycoat Devonshire Square Ltd Times, 10 April 2000; Gazette, 14 April 2000
10 Apr 2000
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
A clause in a lease which reserved rent and additional contributions to the fees and other sums payable to the tenant by virtue of his occupation did not mean that the tenant had to pay on part of sums received by him arising from the dilapidations of a sub-tenant. The definition was of 'the aggregate of all rents fees and other moneys from whatever source … (payable) by virtue of its estate or interest.' The sum was compensation for damage to the property and was not derived from the estate in the land.

 
Sears Properties Netherlands Bv v Coal Pension Properties Limited [2000] ScotCS 103
11 Apr 2000
SCS
Lord Eassie
Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 74
17 Apr 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London Baggage Company v Railtrack Plc (No. 1) [2000] EWHC 459 (Ch)
17 Apr 2000
ChD

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWHC Ch 178; [2001] Ch 493
19 Apr 2000
ChD
Justice Laddie
Landlord and Tenant, Torts - Other
The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell. Held: The 1987 Act did not confer a right to pre-emption as such. Having gone through the procedure the landlord could still sell elsewhere. He was not under an obligation to disclose every term of the proposed disposal. The Act does not allow a right to claim damages for breach of statutory duty. The Act had provided for a remedy for a failure to serve a correct notice, and the second action was itself an abuse of process.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Manel and Others v Memon; CA 20-Apr-2000 - Times, 20 April 2000; [2000] 2 EGLR 40
 
Taj v Ali Gazette, 28 April 2000
28 Apr 2000
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
A tenant was in very substantial arrears, but succeeded in having a claim for failure to repair set off against them leaving thirteen thousand pounds outstanding. The judge ordered possession but suspended it on terms which would require the arrears to be paid off over 55 years. The landlord's appeal succeeded. The judge had already allowed for the landlord's delay in acting, and such an order could only be made where the tenant had a prospect of paying off the arrears within a reasonable and definite time.

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 75
4 May 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Firle Investments Ltd v Datapoint International Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 105
8 May 2000
TCC
Colin Reese QC
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord sought damages for the breach by the tenant of his covenant to repair, and claimed inter alia the estimated costs of repair as set out in a schedule of dilapidations. The tenant claimed there was no damage because the real value of the property was for redeveloment, and works for that purpose would render any repairs worthless. Held: " Expressing the essence of the general principle in my own words, I would put it this way: If none of the repairs could realistically be expected to survive the refurbishment or if only such an insignificant proportion could be expected to survive as to fall within the "de minimis" concept, it is difficult to see how the value of the landlord's interest at the term date would have been in any way diminished by reason of the disrepair. Equally, whenever some not insignificant part or parts of the repairs could realistically be expected to survive the refurbishment, it seems fairly obvious (a) that the value of the landlord's interest at the term date is likely to be to some extent diminished by reason of the disrepair and (b) that the extent of the diminution is likely to be related to the value of the repairs that could realistically be expected to survive ("the survival items") and whatever (if any) reduction in the time required for refurbishment was to be expected if those repairs had been carried out by the tenant before the term date.""
Landlord and Teant Act 1927 18
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Longmint Ltd, Re; LT 26-May-2000 - [2000] EWLands LRX_52_1999
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 76
12 Jun 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
West Sussex Properties Ltd v Chichester District Council [2000] EWCA Civ 205
28 Jun 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Ernest John Fifield and Another v W and R Jack Limited [2000] UKPC 27; Appeal No 11 of 1999
29 Jun 2000
PC
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Mr. Justice Henry
Commonwealth, Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant
PC (New Zealand) The tenants sought an extension of time to take their rent review to arbitration. The Landlords appealed a grant of leave. Held: The grant of leave was discretionary where the court found undue hardship. The appeal was dismissed. The appellants conduct was consistent only with having foregone their right to insist on strict compliance with the time limit imposed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons Gazette, 20 July 2000; [2000] EWHC Technology 84
29 Jun 2000
TCC

Insolvency, Company, Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant
The company began a claim for damages for the failure to complete an award of a contract, but then went into voluntary liquidation. The defendant refused payment claiming that it would be used only for payment of the insolvency practitioner's costs. The new CPR rules disapplied old assumptions, and the overriding objective should apply. An interim payment was ordered limited to reflect the risk of a failure to secure recovery in the case of a failure of the action.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Welsh v Greenwich London Borough Council Gazette, 06 July 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000; Times, 04 August 2000; (2001) 33 HLR 40
6 Jul 2000
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
A flat had been let without heating. The tenant complained at the consequent damp and condensation. The authority claimed it was not obliged to put the property into a better condition under a clause saying it agreed 'to maintain the dwelling in good condition and repair' and there was no structural damage. The tenant had not been legally advised and the tenancy was a social one. Held: The words were to be taken in a non technical way, and could include an obligation to take steps to prevent the mould and condensation, if necessary by way of heating. The failure to provide insulation or lining allowed excessive condensation and mould. The council had failed to maintain the flat in good condition.
1 Citers



 
 Forebury Estates Ltd v Chiltern Thames and Eastern Rent Assessment Panel; QBD 6-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 06 July 2000
 
Daejan Properties Ltd v Bloom Gazette, 13 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000
13 Jul 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant
An underlessee covenanted to pay a reasonable proportion of the cost of repairing walls and 'other conveniences' A slab and asphalt membrane had been laid which led to an ingress of water. The under lease clearly anticipated a wide liability in respect of all items of repair. The word 'conveniences' had been intended to operate as a catch-all, and the under-tenant must contribute.

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 77
18 Jul 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Basch v Stekel and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 3033; [2001] L&TR 1; (2001) 81 P&CR DG1
25 Jul 2000
CA
Chadwick LJ, Buxton LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The deceased had given a guarantee of the tenant's covenant given by his company under a lease. The court was asked whether the obligations under the guarantee survived his death after he company was wound up. Held: Chadwick LJ explained the Hindcastle case: "Lord Nicholls explained in Hindcastle v. Barbara Attenborough why the former practice [of including a put option in a guarantee] was unnecessary. He pointed out that the operation of section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is limited by the provisions in paragraph (b) of subsection (4). The disclaimer takes effect under the section only in so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the insolvent company from liability. The disclaimer does not affect the rights and liabilities of other persons, in particular persons such as a surety or an original tenant. Nevertheless, the tenancy, itself, does cease to exist as an estate in the land demised by the lease. The relationship of landlord and tenant is preserved notionally for the purposes only of giving rise to an obligation on the surety or other third parties."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Adams and Another v Rhymney Valley District Council Gazette, 03 August 2000; Times, 11 August 2000; [2001] 33 HLR 41; [2000] 3 EGLR 25; (2001) 3 LGLR 9; [2001] PNLR 4; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 777
3 Aug 2000
CA
Morritt, Sedley LL,
Negligence, Torts - Other, Landlord and Tenant
The landlord housing authority replaced windows with double glazing with locks on the windows with removable keys. Two children died in a fire in the house being unable to escape through the windows. The authority was not liable in negligence. They had followed the current standard practice in fitting the windows with locks of this type.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 78
8 Aug 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Knapdale (Nominees) Ltd v Donald and Another; OHCS 22-Aug-2000 - Times, 22 August 2000
 
Fivecourts Ltd v R Leisure Development Co Ltd Gazette, 07 September 2000; [2001] L&TR 47
7 Sep 2000
QBD

Landlord and Tenant
The tenant took on derelict premises subject to a full repairing covenant. It sublet part to a subsidiary company, but failed repeatedly to comply with agreed schedules for the works of repair and embodied in consent orders. It sought relief from forfeiture arguing that the court had power to alter consent orders against the wishes of one party. Held: The power to alter a consent order applied in exceptional circumstances only, and the sub-tenant should not be allowed to apply from relief where this thrust on the landlord a tenant he had not agreed to.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1925 146

 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 79
11 Sep 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 80
11 Sep 2000
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Gazette, 12 October 2000
12 Oct 2000
ChD

Landlord and Tenant, VAT
Tenants of long lease where the landlord had elected to charge VAT, decided to seek sub-tenants. They delayed election themselves in order to assist such sub-tenants, but eventually waved their exemption and sought to reclaim the VAT paid to their own landlords. The commissioners objected. The deduction system was fundamental, and intended to relieve businesses of liability for the final responsibility for VAT, the payments which had been made were properly cost payments within the Directive, and the rentals could not be seen as a series of short lived inputs.
VAT Regulations 1995/2518 - Value Added Tax Act 1994

 
Regina v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Ex Parte Daejan Properties Ltd Gazette, 12 October 2000; Times, 20 October 2000
20 Oct 2000
QBD

Landlord and Tenant
Tenants under long leases sought to recover service charges which had been paid over many years, but which they had come to consider unreasonable. The landlords resisted the claim for repayment saying the Tribunal had no power to make an order when the charges had been paid. The tribunal also said that a limitation period of twelve years applied. On appeal the court said that the intention of the Act had been to widen the scope for such claims, and it would be unhelpful and unjustified to restrict the word 'payable' to future payments. It was not for the Tribunal to consider the limitation question.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Housing Act 1985 - Housing Act 1996

 
Pickles v Greenbank Times, 07 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 264
20 Oct 2000
CA

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
Where a tenancy had to be valued following a dissolution of the partnership to whom the tenancy had been granted and assignment by consent to one of the former partners, the valuation was to be as on a sale on the open market. A proper assessment had to be made of the evidence as at the date of assignment, and the judge could take a realistic view of what would be the intentions of both landlord and tenant toward the tenancy, and how those intentions might affect the open market valuation. The value was not the amount the tenant would have been prepared to accept for the tenancy, but how much he would have been prepared to offer to buy it.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon; HL 26-Oct-2000 - Times, 01 November 2000; Gazette, 09 November 2000; Gazette, 16 November 2000; [2000] 3 WLR 1555; [2000] UKHL 52; [2001] 1 EGLR 47; [2001] BPIR 17; [2001] 1 AC 378; (2001) 81 P & CR DG11; (2001) 33 HLR 42; [2000] 4 All ER 897; [2001] L & TR 2; [2000] NPC 110; [2000] EG 119; [2001] 06 EG 164

 
 Jephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another; CA 1-Nov-2000 - Times, 02 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 271; [2001] 23 EGLR 14; [2001] 41 EG 186; [2001] 2 All ER 901
 
Ali Bhai and Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 276; [2001] 2 All ER 865
2 Nov 2000
CA
Kennedy LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The tenant appealed against a refusal of what he said was his right to buy the flat he occupied. The Housing Association respondent and arbitrator had said that the tenancy had been assured, not secure and that therefore no right to buy had existed. After the grant of the tenancy, the Association had changed in status from being fully mutual. Held: The tenant's appeal succeeded. A tenancy from a mutual housing association created in 1985 was neither protected nor secure, and the Housing Act 1985 did not alter that status. However the later Act did operate, when the association converted from its mutual status, to change the tenancy to a secure tenancy, and that in turn gave the tenant a right to buy. The conversion led to the 'landlord condition' becoming fulfilled.
Jonathan Parker LJ said: "paragraph 4(a) in my judgment provides a saving for existing tenancies in respect of which, immediately prior to the commencement date, the "landlord condition" was satisfied (so that they were secure tenancies), but in respect of which the "landlord condition" would otherwise have ceased to be satisfied as from the commencement date, by virtue of the repeals: e.g. a tenancy where the landlord immediately before the commencement date was a non-mutual association. The saving is achieved not by providing that such tenancies shall continue as secure tenancies until such time as the non-mutual association disposes of its interest to an authority or body which is not included in the amended list, for that would be inconsistent with the "ambulatory" nature of the statutory code. Rather, the saving is achieved by preserving the unamended "landlord condition" in relation to such a tenancy, so that it will be a secure tenancy at any time in the future when the interest of the landlord belongs to an authority or body within the unamended section 80 (e.g. a non-mutual association)."
Housing Act 1985 - Local Government and Housing Act 1989 - Housing Act 1988 sch18 p4(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hallisey v Petmoor Developments Ltd Times, 07 November 2000
7 Nov 2000
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
The landlord had reserved to himself responsibility for repair of the fabric of the building. The top floor included demises of roof gardens, but the same roof gardens necessarily played a considerable part in protecting the tenants from rain and the elements. In the circumstances therefore, the landlord remained responsible for repairs to the roof terrace gardens.


 
 Eaton Square Properties Ltd v O'Higgins; CA 16-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 16 November 2000

 
 Rosen v Trustees of Camden Charities; CA 30-Nov-2000 - Times, 13 December 2000; Gazette, 08 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 298

 
 Brent London Borough Council v Patel and Another; ChD 30-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 30 November 2000

 
 Regina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others; CA 1-Dec-2000 - Times, 01 December 2000; (2001) 33 HLR 18

 
 Ellis and Another v Logothetis; LT 5-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWLands LRA_3_2000

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited; HL 7-Dec-2000 - Times, 13 December 2000; [2000] UKHL 61; [2001] 2 AC 349; [2001] 1 All ER 195; [2001] 2 WLR 15; (2001) 33 HLR 31
 
Hanina v Morland Gazette, 07 December 2000
7 Dec 2000
CA

Land, Landlord and Tenant
The respondent was tenant of premises with exclusive access to an area of the roof which had been used by her for leisure purposes. The freeholder objected, and she claimed that the use was in the nature of an easement which had passed to her under the section when she took a transfer of the lease. The right she claimed was an exclusive and unrestricted one. The section could not include such a right in the grant of the lease. However since she had the only access, nominal damages were substituted.
Law of Property Act 1925 62

 
UYCF Limited (Formerly Night Trunkers (London) Limited) v Christopher and Penelope Anne Forrester [2000] EWCA Civ 317
8 Dec 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hussein Walji, Zulikar Walji, Mohammed Iqbal Walji, Hussain Walji v Mount Cook Land Limited; CA 21-Dec-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 356
 
Evis and Smith v Commission for New Towns ACQ/125-7/2000
31 Dec 2000
LT

Land, Damages, Landlord and Tenant
LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - disturbance payment - Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 - business premises acquired by authority with compulsory purchase powers - land later developed by company with lease from authority - entitlement to compensation under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s 37 - whether such entitlement precludes compensation under 1973 Act s 37(1)(a) - whether fact that development not carried out by authority precludes compensation under s 37(1)(c) - held compensation under s 37(1)(a) not precluded but no entitlement under s 37(1)(c)
Land Compensation Act 1973 37

 
Adrian JR Langinger v The Earl of Cadogan Estates Ltd LRA/46/2000
31 Dec 2000
LT

Landlord and Tenant


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