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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 121 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Hackney London Borough Council v Snowden (2001) 3 L & TR 60
2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant
A short notice to quit might be given by a landlord if accepted by a tenant.
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5(1)
1 Citers


 
London Baggage (Charing Cross) Limited v Railtrack plc [2001] EGCS 6
2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The tenant had been in occupation under a tenancy for three years and eleven months when the tenancy was terminated by notice. The tenant held over under a tenancy at will. By the time they finally came to vacate they had been in occupation for more than 5 years, and sought a compensatory payment under the 1954 Act. Held: The Act referred to the 'date on which the tenant is to quit'. That date was the date set by the s25 notice terminating the lease. Compensation was not payable.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Cites


 
Claire's Accessories UK Ltd v Kensington High Street Associates [2001] PLSES 112
2001


Landlord and Tenant
A clause in the lease required any notice given to be sent to the tenant's registered office. A notice was served elsewhere. Held: Mannai could not be applied. The notice had not been served.

 
Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Label Ink Ltd [2001] L & TR 29
2001
ChD
HH Judge Rich QC
Landlord and Tenant
An industrial warehouse was let for a term of 15 years. A clause contained an option for the tenant to break the lease on one year's written notice on condition that: "There shall not be any material breach of the covenants on its part herein contained." but "Without prejudice to any remedy available to the landlord in respect of any breach of covenant on the part of the tenant or the conditions herein contained." It was common ground that a breach could not be material if it was not a subsisting breach on the termination date. Held: The authorities established: "In qualifying clause 7.8 that the breach must be material, it is clearly intended to mitigate that rule as an otherwise trifling breach would disqualify the tenant from exercising the option even though the court might be slow to find such a breach, where it would be unfair to do so.
The intention must be to modify that rule to an extent that is reasonably fair to both landlord and tenant. The tenant is given by clause 7.8 the right to break, providing he complies with his covenants to the extent of avoiding any material breach. In my judgment, in that context, the breach is material if, but only if, having regard to all the circumstances, and to the proper efforts of the tenant to comply with his covenants, as well as the adverse effect on the landlord of any failure to do so, it will be fair and reasonable to refuse the tenant the privilege which the lease otherwise grants. The extent of any breach, the practicality of quantifying any damage arising out of it, the efforts made by the tenant to avoid it, the genuine interest which a landlord had in strict compliance are, in my judgment, all material factors in determining materiality."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Wallis Fashion Group Ltd v CGU Life Insurance (2001) P&CR 28
2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Landlord and Tenant
Neuberger J said that the 1995 Act: "represents a sea change in the law relating to a tenant's liability after he assigns the lease".
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995
1 Citers


 
Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Bromley London Borough Council Gazette, 18 January 2001; Times, 09 January 2001
9 Jan 2001
ChD

Human Rights, Transport, Landlord and Tenant
Applicants sought the right to fly from the airport. Local residents sought to intervene on the basis that if the lease controlling such rights was construed in such a way as to allow such an extension, this would interfere with their human rights. The lease had to be construed against the factual background as at the time it was entered into, and the Act could not affect that interpretation, and there was no basis for implying any such term into the lease. The local authority was not acting unlawfully in granting a declaration in the terms it proposed.
Human Rights Act 1998

 
North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 82
15 Jan 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (1) Times, 18 January 2001
18 Jan 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Land, Equity
An equitable charge of a lease has standing to apply to court for relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent, where the tenant did not himself seek relief, but only indirectly on the basis that the lessee and chargor has a duty to take reasonable steps to preserve the charge's security. The tenant stands in a similar position to a trustee unwilling to defend trust assets, and the chargee can act joining in the tenant as defendant and claim relief in the tenant's shoes.
Law of Property Act 1925 146(4)
1 Citers


 
Sibley v Peer Securities Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 129
19 Jan 2001
CA
Mance LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Renewed application for permission to appeal. Whether Landlord had a right to construct over land over which it had granted rights of way to an existing tenant.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Fluor Daniel Properties Ltd and Others v Shortlands Investments Ltd; ChD 25-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 25 January 2001; Times, 21 February 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001
 
Top Shop Precincts Ltd v Kwik Save Stores Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 149
26 Jan 2001
CA
Judge, Mance LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
Application for permission to appeal in respect of both a finding of breach of a lease and damages. Held: Refused
[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor v Inntrepreneur Estates Limited [2001] PLSCS 33
30 Jan 2001
QBD
Wyn Williams QC
Landlord and Tenant
The claimant had entered into the 'The Royal Albert' public house under a tenancy management agreement. They later negotiated for a contracted out business tenancy. They sought now to appeal a strike out of their claim for a secure tenancy. Held: Nothing had been said to create any reason for the claimant to believe any binding arrangement existed, though the date for the commencement of the term had passed. Negotiations had been continuing, and the occupation was under a tenancy at will. No estoppel had been created.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Cites



 
 Scott and Another v City and County of Swansea; ChD 1-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 01 February 2001

 
 Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt; CA 1-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 February 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 167; [2001] 3 WLR 62; [2001] NPC 26; [2001] L & TR 40; (2001) 33 HLR 80; (2001) 82 P & CR DG9; [2001] 17 EG 221; [2001] 1 EGLR 53; [2001] QB 1014; (2001) 82 P & CR 35
 
Taylor v Lancashire County Council and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 174
9 Feb 2001
CA

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
Appeal from arbitrator's award - use of farm for importing processing and selling milk - use covenant for agriculture only.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
[ Bailii ]
 
Earl Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd v Cecil [2001] EWLands LRA_10_2000
12 Feb 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT - premium payable for the grant of new lease of flat - value of extended lease - comparables to be taken into account - relationship between existing leasehold and freehold values - whether evidence on relativities relevant - appeal allowed - premium £356,456
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 83
12 Feb 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]

 
 London Fire and Civil Defence Authority v Ahktar; CA 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 295
 
Caplin and Another v Bridge and Another [2001] EWLands LRA_53_2000
22 Feb 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Price payable for acquisition of freehold – value attributable freeholder's opportunity to receive insurance commissions – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9 – Appeal dismissed.
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 9
[ Bailii ]
 
Abacona Investements Ltd v Wright and others (Executors of Will of Eileen Elizabeth Yardley Deceased) [2001] EWLands LRA_23_2000
22 Feb 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT - flat - premium for grant of new lease - yield - review rents - value of existing and proposed interests - compensation for loss or damage - valuation costs - Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, section 60 and Schedule 13
[ Bailii ]
 
BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and Another Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 12 April 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 277; [2001] EGCS 31; [2001] 2 All ER 914; [2002] Ch 12
27 Feb 2001
ChD
Lightman J
Landlord and Tenant
An office buidling had a toughened glass cladding. When a cladding plate slipped and fell, the local authority issed a dangerous structures notice. The landlord served a notice to use the Act to divest himself of responsibility for repairs. Held: For a lease covenant to be subject to the Act, whether for the landlord or tenant, with the effect that that party was released on an assignment by a successor, the covenant had to be transmissible and not personal. Only covenants therefore enforceable against the current tenant or current landlord were covered and if it was one 'falling to be complied with by the landlord', such person being 'the person for the time being entitled to the reversion expectant on the term of the tenancy'. Though the covenant was contained in a separate document, it remained for these purposes a covenant within the Act, and capable of being subject to its provisions. Here the landlord was not released.
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 8 28
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd and Another; ChD 6-Mar-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 06 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 702; [2001] 25 EG 159; [2001] 2 LLR 49; [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 49; [2001] 2 EGLR 32; [2001] L & TR 16; [2001] 1 WLR 1681
 
North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 84
7 Mar 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Platt and Others v London Underground Ltd Times, 13 March 2001; Gazette, 26 April 2001
13 Mar 2001
ChD

Landlord and Tenant, Damages
A landlord let two properties at the same site to the same tenant, who operated two different businesses, one from each site. He unlawfully restricted access to the one site, and caused damage to that business, but in doing so, passers by were diverted to pass by the other business. Though liable for damages in respect of the loss of business at one site, he was able to claim by way of set off the consequent increase in profit at the other. This was so even though such a set off would not be available if the tenant had taken the second lease in the name of a different company. The one loss led predictably to the other gain.

 
Phillis Trading Ltd v 86 Lordship Road Ltd Times, 16 March 2001
16 Mar 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Administrative
A tenant wanting to purchase the freehold offered a sum without mentioning the costs. The landlord counter offered to accept the sum but with costs. His rejection of the offer was unreasonable. The effect would be to nullify the Act since it would lead to tenants paying more for low value freeholds. The power of a tribunal to award costs should be exercised so as to encourage and not to discourage settlements. The landlord should have considered whether the offer was reasonable without looking for costs.
Leasehold ReformHousing and Urban Development Act 1993

 
Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 441
21 Mar 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Jastrzebski and Another; CA 21-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 431
 
Regina v Rent Officer of Kensington and Chelsea, Ex Parte Hartley Times, 22 March 2001
22 Mar 2001
QBD

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The landlord applied to register a fair rent. The tenant resisted the claim, saying that the forms had not been correctly completed, answering questions by reference to other documents. The application form was not satisfactorily completed, but not so as to make it invalid. The landlord had intended to answer the questions. The questionaire gave the tenant enough information to allow him to know how to challenge the application, and he had not been prejudiced.

 
Regina v Rent Officer for West Sussex Registration Area, Ex Parte Haysport Properties Ltd Times, 22 March 2001
22 Mar 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Repairs which had the effect of changing a house into one fit for human habitation were to be included as changes to the 'condition of the dwelling house'. This being so the landlord was entitled to apply again to the rent officer for a new fair rent to be registered even though it was less than two years since the prior registration. The state of repair had been taken account of in fixing the fair rent.
Rent Act 1977 67(3)

 
John Lyon's Charity v Shalson [2001] EWLands LRA_54_1999
26 Mar 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT - price payable for freehold of house - appropriate capitalisation and deferment rates - reliability of settlement evidence - whether transfer should include absolute prohibition on use other than as single private residence - whether improvements to be disregarded include conversion from flats to single dwellinghouse - if so, values of unimproved freehold and leasehold interests - appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Southall Properties Ltd v Marya [2001] EWCA Civ 890
27 Mar 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marya v Southall Properties Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1150
27 Mar 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marya v Southall Properties Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 909
27 Mar 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Long v Southwark London Borough Council Times, 16 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 403
27 Mar 2001
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lady Justice Arden
Housing, Local Government, Landlord and Tenant
The Council outsourced the collection of refuse from the block of council flats where the tenant applicant lived. He asserted that the Council were in breach of their covenants as landlords in failing to ensure that the refuse was collected properly. The tenancy agreement required the landlord to take 'reasonable steps' to ensure that the common parts were kept clean and tidy Held: That duty could be satisfied by delegation, but only if there was in addition an adequate system for monitoring the contractors' performance. It had been also a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 85
2 Apr 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Cummings v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Gl) [2001] EWCA Civ 496
3 Apr 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 91
9 Apr 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Rajah v Arogol Co Ltd Gazette, 24 May 2001; Times, 13 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 454
13 Apr 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
A tenant held a protected tenancy of one room in a house, but later extended his occupation to the entire floor. Held: He did not thereby lose his status as protected tenant, and it did not operate as a surrender of the existing tenancy. The section protected the continuing tenancy because it referred to a grant of the tenancy by a person who was then a landlord.
Housing Act 1988 34
[ Bailii ]

 
 Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley and Another; CA 24-Apr-2001 - Times, 15 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 601; [2001] L & TR 34; (2001) 82 P & CR DG26; [2001] 35 EG 106; [2001] 18 EGCS 175; [2001] 3 EGLR 11; [2002] HLR 10; [2001] WTLR 1353
 
Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another Times, 24 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 528; [2001] L & TR 27; [2001] 16 EGCS 145; [2002] HLR 42; [2001] 26 EG 164; [2001] 2 EGLR 36; [2001] 1 WLR 1369; [2001] NPC 74
24 Apr 2001
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from £4,680, to £25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit would be insufficient. Held: The agreement to increase the rent was a sham. The purpose of the agreement was to grant an assured tenancy, and therefore the purpose was to provide security. The rent increase was never expected to be paid, and although the Act left the parties to agree their rent, the increased amount when properly analysed was not rent, but a way of defeating the tenat's security.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Brownfern Properties Ltd v Al-Amood [2001] EWCA Civ 605
24 Apr 2001
CA
Keene LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc v Homebase Ltd Gazette, 26 April 2001
26 Apr 2001
ChD

Landlord and Tenant
The defendant took a lease of substantial property, subject to a covenant not to sublet without the landlord's consent, such consent not to be withheld unreasonably, and which covenant was made subject to additional conditions. The defendants ceased to operate and sought to sublet. They eventually found a possible sub-tenant, and sought the landlord's licence. The court held that each of the additional provisos must be complied with before the reasonableness of the proposed sub-letting was to be assessed, and it was for the tenant to demonstrate that compliance. Promises made by the tenant to the proposed sub-tenant did not invalidate the fulfillment of the conditions by the sub-tenant, particularly in the light of the difficulties in finding a new tenant. However the arrangements did not achieve the requirement to align the terms of the rent reviews in the sub-tenancy with those in the head tenancy.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

 
Regina (Haysport Properties Ltd) v Rent Officer for West Sussex Registration Area Gazette, 26 April 2001
26 Apr 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Repairs which had the effect of changing a house into one fit for human habitation were to be included as changes to the 'condition of the dwelling house'. This being so the landlord was entitled to apply again to the rent officer for a new fair rent to be registered even though it was less than two years since the prior registration. The state of repair had been taken account of in fixing the fair rent.
Rent Act 1977 67(3)

 
Mahmood v Lola and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 483
30 Apr 2001
CA
Aldous LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 86
1 May 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 87
8 May 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Sun Life Assurance Plc v Thales Tracs Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 704; [2001] 20 EG 30
10 May 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The landlord complained that the tenant, when he served his section 26 notice had had no intention of taking up a new lease. Held: The landlord's contention was true, but the Act did not require anything beyond the notice. The section 26 notice itself was valid, even though as the tenant intended he had acquired a further time within which to secure alternative premises.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Haringey v Moodie [2001] EWCA Civ 772
11 May 2001
CA
Mummery LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Application to restore application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Contractreal Ltd v Davies and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 928
17 May 2001
CA
Arden LJ
Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Barnet v Lincoln [2001] EWCA Civ 823
18 May 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Renewed application for leave to appeal against possession order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bircham and Co, Nominees; Limited and Another v Worrell Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 775; (2001) 82 P&CR 427
22 May 2001
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Chadwick And Sir Christopher Staughton
Landlord and Tenant, Contract
Whether an agreement is enforceable for the sale of the remainder of the term of a lease following the exercise (or purported exercise) of rights of pre-emption
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited; CA 23-May-2001 - Gazette, 14 June 2001; Times, 09 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 761; [2001] 3 WLR 824

 
 Sun Life Assurance plc v Thales Tracs Ltd (formerly Racal Tracs Ltd) and Another; CA 24-May-2001 - Times, 25 June 2001; Gazette, 24 May 2001
 
Northern (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 81
31 May 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Logothetis v Kadoori and others [2001] EWCA Civ 838
5 Jun 2001
CA
Dyson LJ
Landlord and tenant
Application for permission to appeal against a decision of the President of the Lands Tribunal on an appeal from a determination by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993
[ Bailii ]

 
 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Sinclair Collis Limited; HL 7-Jun-2001 - [2001] UKHL 30; [2001] STC 989; [2001] All ER(D) 29
 
Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold Ltd and others [2001] EWCA Civ 975
7 Jun 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v John Lewis Properties Ltd Times, 22 June 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 409; [2002] 1 WLR 35; [2001] STC 1118; [2001] BTC 213; [2001] STI 937
13 Jun 2001
ChD
Lightman J
Capital Gains Tax, Landlord and Tenant, Corporation Tax
A group of companies took leases from a company within the group. That company, in turn factored the right to receive the rents for five years to another company in return for a capital payment representing the discounted value of the future rent receipts. It then claimed this as a capital rather than an income receipt, and was taxable accordingly. The Commissioners asserted that it remained income. Held: The appeal failed. The case fell to be decided by the common law of tax rather than statute law. The sale was of an asset not in the course of trade and, as such, and however reluctantly, had to be held to produce a capital receipt and taxed accordingly.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lionel Goldstein v Ron Conley (2) Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 637
21 Jun 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Costs
A case went from the leasehold valuation tribunal, where there was no jurisdiction to award costs, to the Lands Appeal Tribunal where the Tribunal awarded costs against the applicant, and again to the High Court where the landlord sought to enforce the costs award. The tenant argued that the LAT had no power to award costs on an appeal from the LVT. It was held that the proceedings at the LAT were separate proceedings for which a full power to award costs existed, and that the High Court had full power to enforce the costs order, through its inherent powers, just as it had power to enforce a judgment of a foreign court.
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
[ Bailii ]
 
Firle Investments Ltd v Datapoint International Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1106
25 Jun 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Noel-Johnson v Gopee and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1002
28 Jun 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
William Watson Stirling v Leadenhall Residential 2 Ltd Times, 25 July 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1011; [2002] I WLR 499; [2001] 3 All ER 645; [2002] L & TR 14
29 Jun 2001
CA
Judge LJ, Latham LJ, Lloyd J
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Held. A tenant who continued to stay in property after a possession order was granted, but who paid a sum equivalent to rent as it fell due, and something off the arrears, did not necessarily thereby become a tenant again, but could be viewed as a tolerated trespasser. That status might be compromised as against the landlord where he requested a sum which was, in effect, a rent increase. That request was incompatible with the terms of the court order granting him possession, and created a new tenancy.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Chabba v Turbogame Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1073; (2001) 82 P & CR DG24; [2001] NPC 110
6 Jul 2001
CA
Sedley, Wall LJJ
Landlord and Tenant

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
[ Bailii ]
 
Balogun v Hassan [2001] EWCA Civ 1343
9 Jul 2001
CA
Thorpe, Dyson LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
The claimant said she was tenant of a shop of the defendant. The shop was closed for a few weeks during her illness. She complained that the landlord re-entered unlawfully.
[ Bailii ]
 
Barclays Bank plc v Bee and Another Times, 03 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1126; [2001] 29 EG 121 (CS)
10 Jul 2001
CA
Aldous LJ, Arden LJ, Wilson J
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord's solicitors, by mistake, sent two notices to the tenant in the same letter. One notice opposed the grant of a new tenancy but on an invalid ground, and the other said a new tenancy would not be opposed. The tenant sought clarification. The landlord's solicitors purported to withdraw both notices, and served a third notice opposing the grant of a new tenancy. Held: A notice once served could not be withdrawn. The first invalid notice was of no effect, but the second contradicted it, and an informed and reasonable tenant would not be able to ascertain the intention of the landlord from the first two notices. The net effect was that no valid notice had been given in the first two notices, and the landlord could serve the third and effective notice to bind itself not to oppose the grant of a new tenancy.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rowe v Mathews [2001] EWCA Civ 1125
10 Jul 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

Housing Act 1988
[ Bailii ]
 
Barclays Bank Plc v Bee and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1126; (2001) 37 EG 153; [2002] 1 WLR 332; (2001) 82 P & CR DG22; [2002] 1 P & CR 24; [2001] 37 EG 153; [2002] L & TR 3
10 Jul 2001
CA
Aldous, Arden DBE LJJ, Wilson J
Landlord and Tenant
The respondent landlords said that the premises were required to allow rebuilding and refurbishment, and that a renewal of the lease would be opposed. Two s25 notices had then been served by the tenant on the same day. One said that the applicant would seek renewal but gave no grounds for opposition, and one that renewal would not be sought. Held: The two notices merely created confusion, and the tenant could not rely on just one of them to avoid the consequences of opposing renewal.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25
[ Bailii ]
 
Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Bromley London Borough Council Times, 13 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1089
11 Jul 2001
CA
Pill LJ, Arden J, Dyson LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Transport, Contract
A lease of an airport included a restriction to limit use to 'business aviation'. The landlord argued that this had a special meaning in the industry so as to exclude use by chartered and scheduled services. The judge had been correct to say that no such special meaning existed, but had been wrong to interpret that phrase without looking to the factual background. Applying those facts, the use was to be interpreted so as to allow use of aircraft, including chartered aircraft, for business purposes, as within the context of the business of the aircraft owner or charterer for business purposes, but so as to exclude offering transport to members of the public for reward save in an incidental way. The phrase 'other uses related to an airport or related to aviation' did not permit other flying activities.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (No 2) Times, 29 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1088; [2002] 1 P & CR 33; [2001] NPC 115; [2001] 3 EGLR 34; [2002] 1 All ER 244; [2001] 50 EG 92; [2002] Ch 177; [2002] L & TR 4; [2002] 2 WLR 361
11 Jul 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ, Hale J
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant had allowed an equitable charge over his lease in favour of a creditor. The lease was forfeited by peaceable re-entry for non-payment of rent, and the chargee sought relief from forfeiture. A new tenancy had been granted in the mean-time. Held: If relief was on the basis of payment of arrears, some part would be payable to the new tenant. The aim was to re-instate the landlord as if the rent had been paid, but what account was to be taken of the benefits of the new tenancy? The position was compared to a mortgagee having taken possession, and the lessor should be charged for a full occupation rent.
Chadwick LJ said: "Third, the object of the court when granting relief is to put the lessor (as well as the lessee) back in the position in which he would have been if there had been no forfeiture – see Egerton v Jones [1939] 2 KB 702, 706. It is this principle which underlies the practice of requiring the applicant, as a term of relief, to pay the costs properly incurred by the lessor in connection with the re-entry and the proceedings for relief. Accordingly, the applicant will normally be required to pay the lessor's costs of the forfeiture proceedings, save in so far as those costs have been increased by the lessor's opposition to the grant of relief, upon appropriate terms – see Howard v Fanshawe [1895] 2 Ch 581, 592, and Abbey National Building Society v Maybeech Ltd and another [1985] Ch 190, 206. Prima facie, the costs which the applicant will be required to pay to the lessor as a term of obtaining relief will be assessed on an indemnity basis; if it were otherwise the lessor would not obtain the indemnity against proper expenses to which he is entitled – see Egerton v Jones [1939] 2 KB 702, 710. But, to the extent that costs have been increased by the lessor's unnecessary opposition to the grant of relief, the normal rules apply: the lessor will normally be ordered to pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis, and the applicant will be able to set those costs off against what he would otherwise be required to pay to the lessor as a term of obtaining relief from forfeiture."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, ex parte Daejan Properties Ltd Times, 10 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001
12 Jul 2001
CA
Simon Brown LJ, May LJ, Dyson LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The tribunal could only consider an application to review the reasonableness a landlord's service charge to the extent that it remained unpaid. Both the county court and the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear such claims, but the provisions for the tribunal required the charges to be 'alleged to be payable' and that could not be said if they had been paid. A restitutionary order could only be made by the county court, and if the action proceeded, there would be a multiplicity of actions. Since each parties costs would remain irrecoverable, and such an investigation might extend back over several years, and a great deal of money could be wasted. There was also the danger that the limitation period would be disapplied because that act did not apply to tribunal proceedings.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19(2A) - Housing Act 1996 83(1)

 
Daejan Properties Ltd v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 1095
12 Jul 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Paragon Finance plc v City of London Real Property Co Ltd; ChD 16-Jul-2001 - Times, 20 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 483
 
Holding and Barnes Plc v Hill House Hammond Ltd (No 1) [2002] L & TR 7; [2001] EWCA Civ 1334
20 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Sir Martin Nourse
Landlord and Tenant
There had been a sale of an insurance business under which there were to be granted seven leases, two of which related to complete buildings and five to parts of buildings. All seven leases contained landlord's repairing covenants. One of the leases of a complete building ("The Ilford lease") contained a covenant in the following form: "to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good and tenantable repair and condition." The other lease of a whole building had a different form of covenant: "4.3 . . to keep the structure and the exterior of the building (other than those parts comprised in the property) in good and tenantable condition." The problem was that the lease defined "the property" as the whole building, with the result that, read literally, the clause meant there was an obligation to keep in repair the exterior of the property, other than the property. Held: This was an obvious nonsense and it was corrected. "The problem which arises is a good illustration of the dangers of the use of the word processor to produce a draft which is then copied to provide other drafts to be adapted for the purpose of other cases." Looking at the leases together it could be seen that there was an obvious error and "What the parties plainly intended was a repairing covenant in the same form as that of the Ilford lease . ." The draftsman of the particular lease had taken by mistake a covenant from one of the leases of a part building. This was "an obvious clerical error" which the court could correct.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
St Ermins Property Company Ltd v Patel and Others Times, 27 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 804
27 Jul 2001
CA
Chadwick LJ, Arden LJ, Nourse
Landlord and Tenant
A lease was granted for a long tenancy at a low rent. The premises were later divided into maisonettes, but were then again occupied jointly and as one unit. The tenants were found to be entitled to the protection of Part 1, and to a new lease at the same rent. The landlord had served two notices, one for each sub-unit. Held: To be effective, the notice to quit must be served as one notice, and in respect of the whole of the premises. The two notices were ineffective, and the tenancy continued.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part 1 3 (2) (a)
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 88
30 Jul 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Fortman Holdings Ltd v Modem Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1235
30 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Rimmer
Landlord and Tenant
The issue of "material compliance" in a lease whatever it involves must be determined on an objective basis.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd Gazette, 20 September 2001; Times, 02 October 2001; Gazette, 04 October 2001; [2002] 4 All ER 264; [2001] EWCA Civ 1252; [2002] Ch 306
31 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Kay, Lady Justice Arden
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them. Held: The appeal succeeded. The Mecca case was wrongly decided. The deeming provision in the lease was decisive, or nearly so, contra indication of the idea that time should not be of the essence in such cases. Per Arden LJ: "It is relevant, however, to note that the lease is made between two commercial parties. If the tenant had been a consumer and the provisions for review of rent had not been individually negotiated (and no other enactment applied), it would be open to the tenant to argue that by virtue of the Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 S1 1999/2083, the provisions of proviso (2) are not binding on him".
Unfair Terms on Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (S1 1999/2083)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bellow Properties Ltd v Master Fellows and Scholars of College of Holy and Undivided Trinity Within Town and University of Cambridge (Trinity College) [2001] EWCA Civ 1386
31 Jul 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Rent Review
[ Bailii ]
 
Speedwell Estates Limited and Covent Garden Group Limited v Jane Rush Dalziel and others Gazette, 23 August 2001; Times, 19 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1277; [2001] PLSCS 191; [2002] 1 EGLR 55
31 Jul 2001
CA
Pill, May LJJ, Rimer J
Landlord and Tenant
Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not such as to invalidate the notices. Held: '[T]he better approach is to look at the particular statutory provisions pursuant to which the notice is given and identify what it's requirements are. Having done so, it should then be possible to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not the notice served under it adequately complies with those requirements. If anything in the notice contains what appears to be an error on its face, then it may be that there will be scope for the application of the Mannai approach, although this may depend on the particular statutory provisions in question. The key question will always be: is the notice a valid one for the purpose of satisfying the relevant statutory provisions?' The tenants had made no attempt to complete core elements of the forms. The defects were not capable of rectification by interpretation, and the notices were invalid.
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Sch 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 89
16 Aug 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 90
17 Aug 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
South v Chamberlayne Gazette, 04 October 2001
7 Sep 2001
ChD
Lightman J
Landlord and Tenant
The claimant occupied a house under a 75 year lease. She obtained an order requiring the landlord to sell the freehold reversion to her, and then set out to sell on her interest. She contracted to sell her interest in the property and her statutory rights, and later purported to assign her rights to the purchaser. The landlord refused to sell under 5(2), and she sought specific performance. Held. The statutory rights could not exist outside the lease, and were not capable of separate assignment, The assignment was of no legal affect. Accordingly the claimant was entitled to specific performance.
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 5(2)
1 Cites


 
Lebreh Limited and Finbrook Investments Limited v Laganside Corporation [2001] NIEHC 64
7 Sep 2001
NIHC

Northern Ireland, Landlord and Tenant, Construction
The tenant sought declarations that the landlord had unreasonably withheld its consent to merger of two leases, and works of alteration. The leases related to a building development. The landlord sought a premium for the consent. There is no statutory provision applying to the consents required in this case. It is established that the landlord should not use the withholding of consent to achieve a collateral advantage. The landlord established a commercial detriment from the proposed development, and accordingly the declaration was refused.
Conveyancing Act and the Property Act 1892 - Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 92
10 Sep 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Unilodge Services Ltd v University of Dundee [2001] ScotCS 219; [2001] ScotHC 102
10 Sep 2001
ScHC

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant
A lease had been granted to the University for student accommodation. The rent was to vary along with average rent increases for such accommodation in other Scottish Universities. The question was what bodies were included, either all bodies such designated at the time of the grant, or all such at the time of the rent review.
Held: The court is seeking to identify and declare the intention of the parties to the lease as expressed. Neither construction yields a result that is absurd, or inconsistent with attainment of the purpose of the rent review clause. The intention of the clause was that the rent should keep pace with the market as a whole. That required inclusion of all university bodies at the date of the review.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 94
12 Sep 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 95
17 Sep 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Sassoon v Grover [2001] EWCA Civ 1458
25 Sep 2001
CA
Aldous LJ
Landlord and Tenant
Application for permission to appeal an extension of time and a stay of execution. Arrears of rent - possession order.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rees-Davies v City of Westminster [2001] EWLands LRA_18_1994
28 Sep 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT PRACTICE - leasehold enfranchisement -application for extension of time and adjournment of hearing - appellants required to show cause why appeal should not be dismissed - whether appellants failed to pursue the appeal with due diligence - whether appellants failed to comply with any provisions of Lands Tribunal Rules - Lands Tribunal Rules 1996, rules 3(4), 45(2) and 46(2)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Stichtung 'Goed Wonen' and others v Staatssecretaris van Financien C-326/99; [2001] ECR I-6831; [2001] EUECJ C-326/99
4 Oct 2001
ECJ

European, VAT, Landlord and Tenant
A letting for the purpose of the VAT directive was essentially 'the conferring by a landlord on a tenant for an agreed period and in return for payment of the right to occupy property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person from the property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person from enjoyment of such a right'
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Gilje and others v Charlgrove Securities Ltd [2004] 1 All ER 91; [2001] EWCA Civ 1777; [2002] 1 EGLR 41; [2002] L & TR 33; [2002] 16 EG 182
4 Oct 2001
CA
Mummery LJ, Kennedy LJ, Laws LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court was asked as to the liability of five underlessees to pay the rent for a caretaker employed by the landlord. The lease envisaged a caretaker living in the building. Previously the caretaker had been paid a larger wage but had then paid a rent. Held: The landlord's appeal was dismissed. Provisions relating to service charges are to be restrictively interpreted: "The landlord seeks to recover money from the tenant. On ordinary principles there must be clear terms in the contractual provisions said to entitle him to do so. The lease, moreover, was drafted or proffered by the landlord. It falls to be construed contra proferentem."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 96
4 Oct 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Berkeley Leisure Group Ltd v Hampton [2001] EWCA Civ 1474
5 Oct 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

Mobile Homes Act 1983
[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group Plc [2001] EWCA Civ1476
9 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice SedleyVAT, Landlord and Tenant
The respondent sought to deduct input tax from income it received from lettings. It had previously occupied the buildings itself making exempt supplies, but then let them. They later waved their exemption, and sought to deduct input tax for periods prior to the election. One issue was whether a lease was one supply or a series of supplies for each rent period. Held: There was no valid distinction in the Regulation 85 deeming between rents to be set off against the period in which they fell due, and inputs for the same property. There was no connection between the pre-election expenses and the post election rent receipts. The taxpayers were however saved by regulation 109.
Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 4 Para 4 s5(1) & (2) - VAT Regulations 1995/2518 109
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Mirror Group plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Cantor Fitzgerald International v Same Times, 07 November 2001; C-409/98; C-108/99; [2002] QB 546; [2001] STC 1453; [2001] EUECJ C-108/99; [2001] EUECJ C-409/98
9 Oct 2001
ECJ
F. Macken, President of Chamber and Judges N. Colneric, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen Advocate-General A. Tizzano
VAT, Landlord and Tenant
A potential lessee who did not have an interest in immovable property agreed to take a lease in return for money paid by the landlord. The transaction was not exempt from value-added tax under article 13(B)(b) as "the leasing or letting of immovable property." Nor did a person taking an assignment of a lease of the property for consideration paid by the lessee to him have an interest in immovable property at the time of the agreement, and his case did not fall within article either. In each case the agreement was a supply of services either to the Landlord or to the Assignor. "The principle of the neutrality of VAT does not mean that a taxable person with a choice between two transactions may choose one of them and avail himself of the effects of the other". And "The court observes in that connection [the VAT system's objective of ensuring legal certainty] that, to facilitate the application of VAT, it is necessary to have regard, save in exceptional cases, to the objective character of the transaction in question".
Community Sixth VAT Directive 13(B)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins; HL 11-Oct-2001 - Times, 18 October 2001; Gazette, 25 October 2001; [2001] UKHL 43; [2002] 1 AC 301; [2002] 1 All ER 46; [2001] 3 WLR 806; [2001] All ER (D) 154; [2002] RVR 162; [2002] L & TR 15; [2002] 1 P & CR DG15; [2001] 3 EGLR 93; [2001] Hous LR 133
 
Langinger v Earl of Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd [2001] EWLands LRA_46_2000
16 Oct 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, 1993 Schedule 13 - Valuation of Leases disregarding rights - Evidence of settlements - Marginal variation from LVT's valuation - Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
[ Bailii ]
 
National Car Parks Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Trinity Development Company (Banbury) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1686; [2001] 28 EG 144
18 Oct 2001
CA
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Buxton, Arden LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
The land owner appealed a decision that the claimant was a tenant of its premises. It had granted what was described as a licence to the claimant, but stated explicitly that the claimant's servants should not in any way impeach the land-owner's possession of the premises. Held: Such a clause was not consistent with a grant of exclusive possession.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Yaxley v McGlave [2001] EWCA Civ 1694
29 Oct 2001
CA
Rix LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant of a flat sought leave to appeal a possession order. He claimed a tenancy having over the years done much work on the rest of the house in return for which he had at first been allowed to live there rent free, but latterly to ocupy these rooms for £160.00 a week. Held: The appellant had no reasonable prospects of overturning the facts found by the judge. Leave refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 98
2 Nov 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Northern (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 7
2 Nov 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 99
7 Nov 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 97
7 Nov 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council; HL 8-Nov-2001 - Times, 12 November 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 59; [2001] 1 WLR 2180
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 100
14 Nov 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1772
19 Nov 2001
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Burford UK Properties Ltd and Others v Forte Hotels (UK) Ltd and Others Gazette, 29 November 2001
19 Nov 2001
ChD
Simon Berry QC
Landlord and Tenant
Properties were let on 99 year leases with provision for upwards only rent reviews. The new rents were to be linked to 'net bedroom rent' (NBR) figures. The lease imposed an obligation on the tenant to attempt to secure the best rents for the rooms, and not to take the bedrooms out of service save for redecoration. A claim was brought, and as a preliminary issue the question was whether the provisions amounted to a covenant as to the use of the property. Held: The provisions were merely an extension or qualification of the definition of the terms used to calculate the rent. The use of the word 'shall' did not necessarily impose an obligation, and no action for damages was possible.

 
Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd Gazette, 29 November 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1712; [2002] Ch 256; [2002] 2 WLR 1172; [2002] 1 P & CR DG16; [2002] 06 EG 156; [2002] 1 EGLR 61; [2002] 1 All ER 144; [2002] L & TR 19; [2002] HLR 45; [2001] NPC 166; [2001] 48 EGCS 128
20 Nov 2001
CA
Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Chadwick LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in terms (as it had to) whether the right to acquire the extension lease was or was not admitted. She claimed the counter-notice was invalid. She appealed a judgment that the notice was valid since she should have seen that the landlord admitted her claim. Held: The appeal succeeded. The counter-notice was integral to the process, and was to assist the tenant in knowing just which parts of her notice were at issue. The counter-notice failed to achieve that. Nor did it achieve effect under other subsections.
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 42 49
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyd and others v Dugdale and Another Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1754; [2002] 2 P&CR 13; [2001] 48 EGCS 129; [2001] NPC 168; [2002] WTLR 863
21 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Sir Christopher Slade
Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel, Land, Contract, Trusts
The claimants asserted a right to possession of land, and the defendant resisted, claiming a proprietary estoppel. A predecessor had intended to grant a sub-lease to the defendant, who had arranged for his company JAD Ltd to execute major works on the strength of that promise. JAD was given permission to store items there, but JAD Ltd took up possession. The sub-lease was never signed. The head-lease was assigned to the claimants, subject to any rights of the defendants. Held: No notice was effective. Whatever estoppel arose, was in favour of JAD, not his company, and it was in possession, not him. The assignment defeated the claim of JAD Ltd by section 20. No constructive trust arose, because the claimant's conscience was not deemed to be affected.
The court set out the principles applying: "(1) Even in a case where, on a sale of land, the vendor has stipulated that the sale shall be subject to stated possible incumbrances or prior interests, there is no general rule that the court will impose a constructive trust on the purchaser to give effect to them.
(2) The court will not impose a constructive trust in such circumstances unless it is satisfied that the conscience of the estate owner is affected so that it would be inequitable to allow him to deny the claimant an interest in the property.
(3) In deciding whether or not the conscience of the new estate owner is affected in such circumstances, the crucially important question is whether he has undertaken a new obligation, not otherwise existing, to give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest. If, but only if, he has undertaken such a new obligation will a constructive trust be imposed.
(4) Notwithstanding some previous authority suggesting the contrary, a contractual licence is not to be treated as creating a proprietary interest in land so as to bind third parties who acquire the land with notice of it, on this account alone: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . .
(5) Proof that the purchase price by a transferee has been reduced upon the footing that he would give effect to the relevant encumbrance or prior interest may provide some indication that the transferee has undertaken a new obligation to give effect to it: see Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold . . However, since in matters relating to the title to land certainty is of prime importance, it is not desirable that constructive trusts of land should be imposed in reliance on inferences from "slender materials"."
Law of Property Act 1925 20(1) 70(1)(g)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
J S Bloor (Measham) Ltd v Eric Myles Calcott Times, 12 December 2001; Gazette, 24 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Ch 467; CH1997 J No: 5742
23 Nov 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Hart
Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel, Damages
The tenant had claimed a tenancy under the Act. The landlord sought to assert a proprietary estoppel against them. There was nothing in the 1986 Act to stop the claimants relying on a proprietary estoppel and asserting their claims to occupation. The defendant's tenancy was unenforceable against them.
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2001] EWLVT 93
28 Nov 2001
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another Gazette, 01 February 2002; Times, 21 February 2002; [2002] 2 WLR 672; [2002] 1 All ER 821; Independent, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1797; [2002] Ch 194
30 Nov 2001
CA
Mr Justice Judge and Mr Justice Jonathan Parker and Mr Justice Bodey
Landlord and Tenant, Contract
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects occurred for which the landlord would be liable. The agreement for lease provided that the obligations were personal to the landlord and not capable of assignment. The question at issue was whether such a collateral agreement was covered by the 1995 Act. The definition in the Act referred to the landlord for the time being. That could not include obligations which were personal to the landlord, and so the landlord was not released by the assignment and notice.
In an agreement, the prospective landlord undertook to complete repairs. After the lease had been executed, the reversion was transferred, and he sought to use the Act to obtain its release from the obligation. The tenant took no steps to counter the notice. Held: The covenant was a personal one, and therefore not given in his capacity as landlord 'from time to time.' Accordingly the Act could not be used to evade responsibility.
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3 8 28
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cullen v Whinhurst Investments Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1927
7 Dec 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant
Applications for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Century 2000 Enterprises Ltd and Another v SFI Group Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1986
11 Dec 2001
CA
Auld, Ward, Robert Walker LJJ
Contract, Landlord and Tenant
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claim that an agreement entitled them to take a 35 years lease of the defendants. The contract had depended on complex conditions as to planning consents. Held: The appeal failed: "Ultimately, it is a question of deciding what the contract says, construed in its commercial context but without speculation about the parties' unexpressed hopes and motives."
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Hazel v Akhtar and Another Times, 07 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1883; [2002] 07 EG 124
12 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Henry and Sir Anthony Evans
Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel
A landlord who had consistently accepted late payment of rent from his tenant could become estopped from refusing renewal of a business tenancy on the grounds of late payment of rent. That tenant's conduct as regards payment of rent involving repeated minor breaches of his obligations under the lease had been acceptable to the landlords was significant. They were estopped in law and equity from insisting that the tenant comply strictly with the lease until such time as the tenant received clear notice that strict compliance was required.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(b)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Spring House (Freehold) Ltd v Mount Cook Land Ltd; CA 12-Dec-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1833
 
Re Acton and Another [2001] EWLands LRA_34_2001
17 Dec 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Hall; White v Chubb; similar Times, 15 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2034; [2002] 1 P & CR DG22; [2002] 11 EG 156; [2002] 3 EGCS 127; [2002] L & TR 25; [2001] NPC 188; [2002] 1 EGLR 9; [2002] HLR 33
19 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith;Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Tuckey
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Parties appealed decisions as whether assured shorthold tenancy notices were valid despite errors. Held: If, notwithstanding errors or omissions, the substance of the notice was sufficiently clear to the reasonable person reading it, then the notice was likely to serve the purpose, and it could be valid. There was not a two stage test of first determining whether there was an obvious mistake. The test was rather whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice was substantially to the same effect as the correct version in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy. The purpose of the notice was not to set the terms of eth tenancy, because the tenancy did not yet exist, and was created by the tenancy and not by the notice, but rather and only to help the tenant identify which tenancy would be subject to these conditions.
Mummery LJ said: "In my judgment, however, a detailed analysis of each decision is not a profitable exercise: the question whether a notice under section 20 is in the prescribed form or is in a form "substantially to the same effect" is a question of fact and degree in each case, turning on a comparison between the prescribed form in Annex 1 and the particular form of notice given . . The question is simply whether, notwithstanding any errors and omissions, the notice is 'substantially to the same effect' in accomplishing the statutory purpose of telling the proposed tenant of the special nature of an assured shorthold tenancy."
Housing Act 1988 20 - Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (1988 SI No 2203)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2002] 25 Estates Gazette 154; [2001] EWCA Civ 2011; [2002] EGLR 19
20 Dec 2001
CA
Sir Christopher Slade
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered a parking management scheme imposed by freeholders on an estate. The result would be to reduce the number of parking spaces from 13 to 4. Held: (Sir Christopher Slade) "The lease in terms conferred upon the lessee 'the right to park his private motor car'. The parties clearly contemplated that this was a right which would be capable of being exercised. As [counsel] pointed out on behalf of the claimant, the function of specifying a part of the retained property for parking purposes was equally clearly conferred upon the lessor for the purpose of giving effect of that right and not for the purpose of enabling him to extinguish it. The subject matter of the grant of a right to park was not on the true construction of paragraph 7 of the second schedule to the lease a right wholly determinable at the whim of the lessor." and "The attitude of the defendant as revealed in past correspondence appears to have been 'since we have the power to specify a parking area it logically follows that we have the power to withdraw a specification or not to specify at all'. In my judgment, this attitude represents a breach of the well known and well established principle that a grantor shall not derogate from his grant." and "In my judgment, however, [counsel] was right when he pointed out that the relevant date for determining whether or not there has been a substantial interference is not 1985 but the date of the interference. His submissions in this context were very simple. But for the interference the claimant was able to park on some 12 or 13 spaces in competition with a number of other persons. At that point she was restricted to parking on 3 or 4 spaces in competition with the same number of persons. This must constitute substantial interference with the enjoyment of her right."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Forcelux Ltd v Shaw, De'athe, Burgess, Wood v Mr C Bell LRX/02/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant

[ LT ]
 
Acton and Acton v Knott LRA/34/2001
31 Dec 2001
LT

Landlord and Tenant

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