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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 159 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Brighton and Hove Council v Collinson [2004] 21 EG 150
2004


Landlord and Tenant
The parties had negotiated for a lease to a company with the directors acting as guarantors. Approval was obtained through the court to it being excluded from protection. The lease when actually executed had the directors substituted as tenants. They now claimed that they were secure tenants because the lease differed from that granted exclusion. Held: All the parties knew full well that the lease was intended not to be protected. The Act need not be interpreted too technically. The lease was not protected.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954


 
 Foreign Property APS v Secretary of State for Health; 2004 - [2004] 2 P and CR 5
 
Iqbal v Thakrar [2004] EWCA Civ 592
2004
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, Longmore LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The court considered a covenant in a lease not to alter the premises: "(1) The purpose of the [covenant] is to protect the landlord from the tenant effecting alterations and additions which damage the property interests of the landlord. (2) A landlord is not entitled to refuse consent on grounds which have nothing to do with his property interests. (3) It is for the tenant to show that the landlord has unreasonably withheld his consent to the proposals which the tenant has put forward. Implicit in that is the necessity for the tenant to make sufficiently clear what his proposals are, so that the landlord knows whether he should refuse or give consent to the alterations or additions. (4) It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the conclusions which led him to refuse consent were justified, if they were conclusions which might be reached by a reasonable landlord in the particular circumstances. (5) It may be reasonable for the landlord to refuse consent to an alteration or addition to be made, for the purpose of converting the premises to a proposed use even if not forbidden by the lease. But whether such refusal is reasonable or unreasonable depends on all the circumstances. For example, it may be unreasonable if the proposed use was a permitted use and the intention of the tenant in acquiring the premises to use them for that purpose was known to the freeholder when the freeholder acquired the freehold. (6) While a landlord need usually only consider his own interests, there may be cases where it would be disproportionate for a landlord to refuse consent having regard to the effects on himself and on the tenant respectively. (7) Consent cannot be refused on grounds of pecuniary loss alone. The proper course for the landlord to adopt in such circumstances is to ask for a compensatory payment. (8) In each case it is a question of fact depending on all the circumstances whether the landlord, having regard to the actual reasons which impelled him to refuse consent, acted unreasonably."
1 Citers


 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 459
13 Jan 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 243
13 Jan 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Fattal and Another v Possessions Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon; LT 14-Jan-2004 - [2004] EWLands LRA_21_2002
 
Rother District Investments Limited v Corke, Orr, Richards [2004] EWHC 14 (Ch)
20 Jan 2004
ChD
Lightman J
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
The court was asked as to the legal effect of a purported peaceable re-entry and forfeiture of a lease by a purchaser of the reversion prior to registration of the purchaser as proprietor at HM Land Registry. Held: The appeal was denied. What had been "a forfeiture by estoppel" between Rother and the Defendants was "fed" and became a full legal forfeiture valid as against the world.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 244
22 Jan 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Norfolk Capital Group Ltd v Cadogan Estates Ltd Times, 12 March 2004
23 Jan 2004
ChD
Etherton J
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant under a business lease served notice of his desire to carry out improvements. The landlord objected saying he would do them himself. The tenant withdrew his notice. The landlord did not go ahead. Held: The tenant having withdrawn his notice the landlord could enforce a right of entry himself to carry out the works. The words of the section should be read in their natural meaning. The proviso implied only that the tenant was unable to carry out the works once the landlord gave his counter-notice. It did not create a right in the landlord to carry out the work.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 3


 
 Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook; CA 2-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 100; Times, 20 February 2004; Gazette, 18 March 2004; [2004] 2 All ER 665; [2004] Ch 296; [2004] L & TR 34; [2004] 2 WLR 1331; [2004] 2 EGLR 55; [2004] 18 EG 102
 
Ball and Ball v Plymouth City Council [2004] EWHC 134 (QB)
4 Feb 2004
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Cadogan and Another v Strauss [2004] EWCA Civ 211; Times, 11 March 2004; Gazette, 11 March 2004
9 Feb 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The tenant served a notice under the Act, but failed to include a full list of the previous linked leases. The landlord said the notice was invalid. Held: The error was not misleading. Such notices had to be viewed in the factual background. That would inform the landlord as necessary. To defeat such a notice the error had to be fundamental. The notice was valid.
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 6(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 245
9 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Niazi Services Ltd v Johannes Marinus Henricus Van Der Loo [2004] EWCA Civ 53; [2004] 1 WLR 1254
10 Feb 2004
CA
Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Dyson
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant counterclaimed an action by the landlord for rent saying the property had not been repaired under the landlord's covenant. The water supply had for 33 months been weak, leading to only a trickle of water being available, and there had been a failure to the lighting in the common parts. Only the water issue remained live. The tenant was a subtenant of the claimant. Held: The tenant had to show that the defect arose in an installation which forms part of "any part of a building in which the lessor has an estate or interest." The installation (or the defective portion of an installation) had to be in that part of a building in which the landlord had an estate or interest, and the landlord was not liable.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 461
12 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 462
12 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 463
12 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Bluestorm Ltd v Portvale Holdings Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 289; Gazette, 26 February 2004
13 Feb 2004
CA
Lords Justice Buxton and Maurice Kay, and Sir Martin Nourse
Landlord and Tenant
The appellant was a lessee of some premises within a development. They purchased the freehold through a subsidiary but then failed to make repairs. When the other tenants withheld the service charges, the company was liquidated. Another tenant became the unwilling landlord, and the appellant then sued the new landlord for failure to repair. The company appealed dismissal of its claim. Held: The company was behaving inequitably, and the claim failed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 246
16 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 464
16 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 247
24 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 465
24 Feb 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited Times, 02 March 2004; [2004] EWHC 324 (Ch); Gazette, 25 March 2004; [2005] 1 WLR 1; [2004] 1 EGLR 121
25 Feb 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Landlord and Tenant, Damages
The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal. Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord's statutory duty, and was an act calculated for its own financial advantage. The court awarded exemplary damages. The award was appropriate in theis case. It fell within the categories set out in Rookes v Barnard.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Keshwara v Keshwala [2004] EWCA Civ 295
1 Mar 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 248
2 Mar 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Long Acre Securities Ltd v Karet Times, 24 March 2004; Gazette, 01 April 2004
3 Mar 2004
ChD
Geoffrey Vos QC
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord of premises held under long residential leases at low rents gave notice of its intention to sell the freehold. The tenant objected that separate notices should have been given for the several structures involved. Held: Provided there was sufficient sharing of the joint structures by the separate tenants, the notices would be adequate.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 1 3 5 - Housing Act 1996 Sch 6
1 Cites


 
Lay and others v Ackerman and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 184
4 Mar 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a counter-notice but it misidentified the landlord. The landlord appealed a finding that his notice was invalid. Held: Applying Mannai: 'the answer to the question whether the mis-identification of the landlord was "deliberate" or not depends on how one puts the question. If one were to ask whether the solicitors who prepared the Counter-Notice intended to identify the landlord in the Counter-Notice as the PFCS Trustees, the answer would be in the affirmative. To that extent the mis-identification was deliberate. On the other hand, if one was to ask whether the solicitors had intended to identify someone other than the actual landlord as the landlord, the answer would be in the negative. To that extent the mis-identification was a mistake. ' and 'One must first consider whether there was a mistake in the information contained in the notice (as there was as to the date in Mannai, and there was as to the landlord, in the present case). If there was such a mistake, one must then consider how, in the light of the mistake, a reasonable person in the position of the recipient would have understood the notice in the circumstances of the particular case. Finally one must consider whether, as a result, the notice would have been understood as conveying the information required by the contractual, statutory or common law provision pursuant to which it was served.' A mis-identification of the landlord need not be fatal to the notice: 'the effect of an error in a statutory notice can and should be judged by reference to the approach laid down in Mannai.' The notice was valid.
Leasehold Reform, Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 45
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 249
5 Mar 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 250
6 Mar 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
O'Brien v Glentamer Mansions Management Co Ltd [2004] EWLands LRA_58_2003
8 Mar 2004
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT - claim by former landlord for compensation for loss resulting from collective enfranchisement - price determined by County Court upheld by Court of Appeal - Leasehold Valuation Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction - appeal dismissed - Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedule 6, paragraph 5.
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 466
10 Mar 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 467
10 Mar 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
South Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 469
24 Mar 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 468
24 Mar 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Gesso Properties (BVI) Ltd v SCMLLA Ltd [2004] EWLands LRA_13_2003
30 Mar 2004
LT

Landlord and Tenant
LT Hope value was not established by the landlord on the evidence.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
John Laing Construction Ltd v Amber Pass Ltd [2004] 17 EG 128; Gazette, 22 April 2004; [2004] 2 EGLR 128
7 Apr 2004
ChD
Mr Robert Hildyard QC
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord resisted the exercise of a break clause saying that the entire premises had not been vacated. The difference was as to whether mere vacation was enough, or whether the tenant had to do some further positive act. The tenant had left assorted security fixtures and maintained security guards. Held: The tenant had done all that was necessary to make clear his intention to vacate the premises. What was left did nothing to prevent the landlord retaking occupation.
The claimant took a commercial lease from the defendant's predecessors. It requested a declaration that it had validly exercised a break clause. The freeholder said the lease continued since the tenant had not given full possession, not having carried out any overt act such as returning keys. Held: The lease had been broken. The defendant's position was artificial. The fact that the claimant had maintained security on the premises was not a denial to the landlord of possession. In the absence of any explicit form being specified, the court must look objectively at events and decide whether the person asserting termination had manifested its intention clearly, and whether the landlord could retake possession without difficulty or objection. The tenant's notice complied with the lease and it had done everything necessary.
Robert Hildyard QC said: "The fact of retention of keys (or the failure to return them) may be significant but, equally, it may not be. All it may signify is . . an oversight or a desire to protect the premises both for the benefit of the [landlord] and in case the [tenant] might be found still to be liable, without in any way signifying any assertion of rights in respect of the property or being inconsistent with an effective termination of such rights."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Lancashire County Council v Taylor and Another [2004] EWHC 776 (QB)
7 Apr 2004
QBD
Stanley Brunton J
Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 - European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 251
17 Apr 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 252
19 Apr 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 470
27 Apr 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 253
30 Apr 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Unicomp Inc v Eurodis Electron Plc [2004] EWHC 979 (Ch)
7 May 2004
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe
Landlord and Tenant, Company
The tenant (CEM) fell into financial difficulties. In breach of covenant the premises were occupied by a related company (Unibol) which started paying the rent. The landlord (Fortwilliam) accepted the rent for nearly two years after having been put on notice of Unibol's occupation and payment of the rent. During this period there were negotiations over an assignment of the lease which failed. Held: The conduct of the landlord in failing to take action to enforce the covenants in the lease when it became clear to it that Unibol had taken possession of the premises and was paying the rent amounted to forbearance: "What occurred here, as a result of Fortwilliam's failure to take any steps to enforce the covenant, was that Fortwilliam may have become estopped by waiver from forfeiting the lease as a result of that breach. By contrast with the circumstances of the Howard de Walden and Selous cases and of Holme v Brunskill, Fortwilliam did not take the initiative to vary the terms of the lease. There was no agreement between Fortwilliam and Holdings on behalf of CEM to vary its terms, simply an acceptance of payment of the rent coming due under the lease by another company in the same group as Holdings and CEM pending negotiations to assign the lease to that company which situation was allowed to continue after those negotiations had broken down."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Eastern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 254
8 May 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Brighton and Hove City Council v Collinson and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 678
12 May 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 255
12 May 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 256
12 May 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Simmons and others v Dresden [2004] EWHC 993 (TCC)
18 May 2004
TCC

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Gary Hirst, Helen May Hirst v George Vousden, Glennys Vousden [2004] UKPC 24
25 May 2004
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant
PC (New Zealand) The parties agreed orally for a lease, the landlord handing the prospective tenant a copy of a standard form lease used for the previous tenancy. The tenants appealed a finding that that document reflected the intended lease. Substantial repairs were required, some were done but uncompleted, and the property could not be occupied. The tenants ceased paying rent, the landlord forfeited, and the tenants applied for relief from forfeiture. Held: The landlords had themselves repudiated the contract, and could not then claim for the non-payment of rent, and the eviction was unlawful.
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 257
25 May 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 258
27 May 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Jeffrey Ian Sargeant, Carol Elizabeth Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited [2004] EWHC 1333 (Ch); Times, 06 July 2004
8 Jun 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Landlord and Tenant
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected. Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into account possible adverse effects on his own business interests and was therefore able to impose such conditions. Section 19(2) would not permit a landlord to allow for such considerations, but that section applied only to improvements. " . . . there is no rule of law which precludes a landlord from relying under any circumstances on perceived damage to his trading interests in adjoining or neighbouring property as a ground for refusing consent to an assignment or change of use. Whether the particular perception is reasonable and whether, if reasonable, it justifies a refusal of consent or the imposition of a condition, is a question of fact in each case. "
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 19(2)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Chancebutton Limiteddeletenumber Limited v Compass Services UK and Ireland Limited [2004] EWHC 1293 (Ch)
8 Jun 2004
ChD
Mr Justice Collins
Landlord and Tenant
Construction of rent review
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 259
8 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Fliptex Limited v Hogg, Elliot, Davies, Laughton [2004] EWHC 1280 (Ch)
8 Jun 2004
ChD
Mr Justice Smith
Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency
Surrender
[ Bailii ]
 
Owugah v Workspace Management Ltd and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1193
9 Jun 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Application for relief from forfeiture
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 260
10 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Williams, Williams v Kiley (Trading As CK Supermarkets) [2004] EWCA Civ 870
15 Jun 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Enforcement of user covenants
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Moseley, Birmingham (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 263
17 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 21(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 261
18 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 262
18 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 264
21 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 471
22 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 472
22 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Eastern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 473
23 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 265
24 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 474
24 Jun 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Slamon v Planchon [2004] EWCA Civ 799; Times, 28 July 2004
25 Jun 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Longmore
Landlord and Tenant
The claimants sought the enfranchisement of their properties in London. The freeholder claimed the benefit of the resident landlord exemption. Held: To succeed in the defence the freeholder had to establish one continuous interest by 'the same person' from the time when the property was converted into flats until the time of the enfranchisement application. The defendant relied upon her mother's actual occupation for the year prior to the notice and her own ownership. However for seome part of the intervening period, that ownership had been under a trust, and therefore the ownership was not continuous in the sense required.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 - Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 10
[ Bailii ]
 
Courtney Lodge Management Ltd v Blake and Others Times, 15 July 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 975
1 Jul 2004
CA
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Chadwick, Sedley LJJ
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant appealed forfeiture proceedings for the failure sof subtenants to repair the property. Held: Section 146 notices which were to lead to forfeiture were required to give a reasonable time to comply with the notice.
Law of Property Act 1925 146
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 266
8 Jul 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Parsons and Another v George and Another [2004] EWCA (Civ) 912; Times, 28 July 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3264
13 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson
Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time. Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the 1954 Act was silent as to the addition or substitution of parties to proceedings. The assumption was that such amendments were to be allowed because the Act did not proscribe them. The extension of CPR 17.4 to limitation periods in some other statutes is within the powers of the rules committee.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II - Civil Procedure Rules 29(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Montoya v Hackney London Borough Council Unreported, 15 July 2004
15 Jul 2004
QBD

Landlord and Tenant
The tenant claimed that the defendant local authority landlord had failed in its duty of repair. A jointly instructed expert gave evidence that the disrepair alleged was not disrepair at all because it was commensurate with the age and type of dwelling, and within the exceptions allowed for within s11(3). Nevertheless the judge at first instance found for the tenant that the defects constituted disrepair. Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no evidential basis for the judge's conclusion, and te judge should not have departed from the only expert evidence in the case.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(3)

 
Harbour Estates Limited v HSBC Bank Plc [2004] EWHC 1714 (Ch); [2005] 2 WLR 67; [2004] 3 All ER 1057; [2005] 1 EGLR 107; [2005] Ch 194
15 Jul 2004
ChD
Lindsay The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay
Landlord and Tenant
The lease contained a break clause. The parties disputed whether the benefit of the clause was personal to the orginal lessee, or whether it touched and concerned the land, and therefore the benefit of it passed with the land. Held: The defendant was entitled to exercise and did validly exercise the break clause. The purpose of section 63 was to avoid the necessity for conveyancers to provide extensive lists of the rights included in a conveyance: "one looks to see what, in terms of estates and interests, was the main corpus intended to be transferred and then, in the absence of an express contrary intention, one may give full literal effect to the words of the section. " and "the section requires no investigation beyond whether the right is "in, to or on" the land conveyed; it specifies no examination into whether the particular right or claim is appurtenant or annexed to or enjoyed with the main corpus . . or whether it "touches or concerns" that main subject matter or even "has reference to" it . . Nothing such is expressly required. Nor, one might think, would such a literal effect open any floodgates; the disponor only has to express a contrary intent in the disposition to deny such effect. "
Law of Property Act 1925 63 142(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 268
16 Jul 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]
 
NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd [2004] EWHC 2073 (Ch)
16 Jul 2004
ChD
Peter Leaver QC
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting. Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and the proposed sub-tenant. The tenant would remain liable for rent and repairs as before. The financial status of the proposed undertenant was not of great or vital significance. Two weeks should have been enough to make the decision. The failure to reply was to be treated as an equivalent to a refusal. "the contractual obligations of the landlord to its bank cannot, in my judgment, be a good reason for the landlord to withhold consent when, absent that obligation, he would grant consent." and "no landlord, acting reasonably, would, or could, have refused consent for the reasons given by Riverland."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 1(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 477
16 Jul 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 267
16 Jul 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 478
19 Jul 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 269
19 Jul 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Scribes West Limited v Relsa Anstalt and Another (No 2) (Practice Note) [2005] 1 WLR 1839; [2004] EWCA Civ 965; [2004] 4 All ER 653
20 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Dyson
Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency, Litigation Practice
The court gave guidance on the destination of appeals from county court cases. It was vital to identify the precise nature of the order under appeal: "The judges of this court (and the staff at the Civil Appeals Office) have to interpret the order of the lower court as we find it. The relevant decision is the Court's order, and the Destination Order determines where appeal should lie from that order . . The appeal court must be the one that is readily ascertainable from the face of the court's order, and not one which would or might have been ascertainable if the judge had made a different order. It would be intolerable if appeal courts had to be subjected to a complicated examination of the types of order that might have been made if the parties had dealt with things differently in the lower court, merely for the purpose of determining whether they possess jurisdiction. The destination of the appeal should be ascertainable from the language of the order."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz [2004] EWHC 1835 (Ch)
27 Jul 2004
ChD
Hart J
Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant
The claimant had previously assigned its interest in a lease to the defendant, who had in turn re-assigned it. The eventual tenant became insolvent, and the landlord had recovered sums from the claimant who now sought an indemnity under the covenant implied under section 24. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out, saying that the claimant had not complied with an order to disclosed details of actions it had agreed with the landlord and which had increaed the sums due. Held. There had not been sufficient non-compliance to justify a striking out of the claim.
Land Registration Act 1925 24
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Earl Cadogan, Cadogan Estates Limited v Search Guarantees Plc [2004] EWCA Civ 969; Times, 03 August 2004
27 Jul 2004
CA
The Hon Mr Justice Laddie Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Landlord and Tenant
The tenant of a house had subdivided it and let off the flats. He sought to acquire the freehold. Held: Where none of the subtenants themselves had qualifying leases, the head tenant could be in sufficient occupation to be able to buy the freehold.
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(1ZB) - Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 101(b)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Northern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 270
28 Jul 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Ltd v Fahad Al Tamimi and First Penthouse Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1072
30 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Keene,Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 271
1 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Northern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 272
5 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 273
10 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 479
10 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 274
10 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd and others v Danovo Ltd [2004] EWHC 2288 (Ch)
11 Aug 2004
ChD
Blackburne J
Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 475
18 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 476
18 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 275
19 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 276
24 Aug 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 480
2 Sep 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v The Lands Tribunal; Admn 3-Sep-2004 - [2004] EWHC 1910 (Admin); Times, 02 November 2004
 
Wolff v Wolff [2004] EWHC 2110 (Ch); [2004] STI 2068; [2004] WTLR 1349; [2004] STC 1633; [2009] BTC 8017; [2004] NPC 135
6 Sep 2004
ChD
Mann J
Inheritance Tax, Landlord and Tenant
The court considered its ability to redraw a document where its legal effect was misunderstood.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 277
20 Sep 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 278
28 Sep 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
A Property Company v HM Inspector of Taxes [2004] UK SPC00433
5 Oct 2004
SCIT

Income Tax, Landlord and Tenant
SCIT SCHEDULE A – income from land – whether agreements for lease gave rise to an immediate right to rent or whether the right was conditional on obtaining the landlord's consent to subletting – whether the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 enables retention of a future rent payment on a sale of the reversion – no – whether the definition of the retained rent payment is void for uncertainty – no – whether contractual right to such rent is within Schedule A – no
CASE VI OF SCHEDULE D – profits – as to the rent payable under agreements entered into before the 1995 Act, it is not taxable under Case VI because the only possible head of charge is Schedule A which does not apply because the source has ceased – as to the rent caught by the 1995 Act which passed automatically to the purchaser, the sum equal to the rent purported to be retained on sale that the purchaser was liable to pay to give business effect to the agreement is taxable under Case VI
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Davy's of London (Wine Merchants) Ltd v City of London Corporation and Another [2004] EWHC 2224 (Ch)
6 Oct 2004
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Landlord and Tenant

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 279
6 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
The Rt Hon Richard Parker, 9th Earl of Macclesfield v The Beechwood Estates Company [2004] EWCA Civ 1476
7 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Waller Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Jacob
Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Eastern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 280
12 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Avonridge Property Co Ltd v Mashru and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1306; [2005] 1 WLR 236
14 Oct 2004
CA
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Parker The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper
Landlord and Tenant
The lease released the landlord from his liability to repair after his assignment of the reversion. It appealed a finding that the provision was void under the 1995 Act, saying the clause was a personal covenant not caught by the Act. Held: The covenant could not successfully proclaim itself both personal and binding on a successor in title: 'the distinction between a personal covenant and a 'landlord's covenant' within the meaning of section 6 of the 1995 Act is that a 'landlord's covenant' is one which is binding on the landlord's successors in title, whereas, by definition, a covenant which is personal to the landlord does not bind his successors'. The appeal failed.
Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another [2004] EWHC 2483 (Admin)
14 Oct 2004
Admn

Planning, Media, Landlord and Tenant
The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted. Held: The grants included the areas surrounding the concrete bases on which the stations were erected. Despite the lease-like terms of the agreements, only licences had been granted since it was envisaged that the land owner could recover possession when required. The erection of the station was "expressed in the language of permissive use to place something on another's land, and not as the grant of a proprietary interest in, and exclusive possession of, land."
Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 8 - Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Richardson v Langtree Group Plc [2004] EWCA Civ 1447
14 Oct 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The appellant challenged a decision that he was personally liable under one lease, and personally liable as surety under another.
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 482
15 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 281
15 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 481
15 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 483
15 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 282
19 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]

 
 Troybest (Holdings) Ltd, Re an Appeal Against A Decision of the Birmingham Leasehold Valuation Tribunal; LT 20-Oct-2004 - [2004] EWLands LRX_61_2003

 
 Lodgepower Ltd v Taylor; CA 22-Oct-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1367; Times, 03 November 2004
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 283
25 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 284
27 Oct 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 285
3 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
South Tyneside v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2428 (Comm)
4 Nov 2004
ComC

Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice
Challenge to witness summonses on reference to arbitration of rent review
[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 487
5 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 485
5 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 484
5 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 486
5 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 489
5 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 488
5 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 490
8 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd [2004] EWHC 2547 (Ch); (2005) 2 P&CR 8
9 Nov 2004
ChD
Lewison J
Landlord and Tenant
The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally suggested a loan, but then changed. Disagreements persisted after completion. Held: There was insufficient agreement to constitute a binding obligation immediately before completion. If the contract was for an interest in land, section 2 of the 1989 Act was not satisfied. Unlike section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, section 2 does not merely prohibit the enforcement of oral contracts; it prohibits the making of oral contracts. An oral offer and acceptance does not, therefore, amount to a contract at all. No Pallant v Morgan equity arose. The claim was dismissed.
Discussing Tootal, Lewison J said: "However, Tootal Clothing Ltd v. Guinea Properties Ltd Management Ltd (1992) 64 P and CR 452 does appear to support Mr Purle's submission; and although other parts of that decision were doubted in Grossman v. Hooper [2001] EWCA Civ 615; [2001] 3 F.C.R 666 [a reference to Scott LJ's obiter observations in paragraph 4], this part was not. Tootal binds me; and I must therefore apply it. What Tootal appears to me to decide is that s. 2 applies only to an executory contract for the sale or disposition of an interest in land; and that once all the land elements of an alleged contract have been performed, the remaining parts of the alleged contract can be examined without reference to s.2 . . "
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Debenhams Retail plc and Another v Sun Alliance and Londoin Insurance Company Ltd Times, 11 November 2004
9 Nov 2004
ChD
Etherton J
Landlord and Tenant
The lease contained a clause where the rent was to be set according to the 'gross amount of the total sales' of the tenant. The tenant argued that this figure did not include the VAT charged on sales, the landlord argued that it was the total sums paid by purchasers. Held: The words were not plain and unambiguous. The commercial purpose was to ensure that the rent reflected the trading conditions, and that both parties shared the risks and returns of trading. To include VAT would not give a true and fair picture of the tenant's profit and loss, and VAT was to be excluded from the calculation.
1 Citers


 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 491
15 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Belgian State v Temco Europe C-284/03; [2004] EUECJ C-284/03; Times, 25 November 2004
18 Nov 2004
ECJ

VAT, Landlord and Tenant
Where the substance of a transaction was merely that premises were made available under a licence for occupation, rather than for the provision of services, a licence to occupy premises could be treated as a letting for the purpose of the Sixth Directive.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 492
18 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 493
18 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Wormall v Wormall [2004] EWCA Civ 1643; Times, 01 December 2004
25 Nov 2004
CA
May LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ, Neuberger LJ
Estoppel, Landlord and tenant
The father had allowed his daughter to run her business from the family farm. The mother and father came to divorce, and the father required vacanat possession of the farm so that he could sell it to satisfy his liabilities in the ancillary relief award. The daughter claimed compensation for disturbance, saying he was estopped from denying her a tenancy. Held: Though the circumstance might give rise to an estoppel, in the contect of the ancillary relief award, it would be wrong to call upon the father to pay the daughter compensation.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dyment v Boyden and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1586; Times, 02 December 2004
26 Nov 2004
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Keene
Company, Landlord and Tenant
Mrs D had gone into business with the respondents to operate a residential care home. It was to be run from premises owned by the respondents. The respondents inter alia had failed to disclose previous convictions, the registration was cancelled, and the company was insolvent. Heads of agreement with an attached draft lease had been agreed but a lease was not signed by the Mrs D. As the business collapsed, Mrs D began another business taking the home's residents. The respondents claimed arrears of rent from Mrs D. Held: Held: It is in principle wrong that an intended party to a lease should be treated as bound at a time before he has committed himself to the lease merely because the other party has delivered the lease in escrow and the escrow conditions are subsequently satisfied. The appeal by the respondents failed.
Companies Act 1985 151 - Insolvency Act 1986
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 287
29 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 495
29 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 494
29 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 286
29 Nov 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967
[ Bailii ]

 
 Fattal and Another v The Keepers and Governors of the Possessions Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon; CA 30-Nov-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1530
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 496
7 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 497
7 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Riverside Property Investments Ltd v Blackhawk Automotive [2004] EWHC 3052 (TCC); [2005] 1 EGLR 114
8 Dec 2004
TCC
His Honour Peter Coulson Q.C.
Landlord and Tenant
Breach of tenant's repairing covenant
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Salford City Council v Torkington and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1646
9 Dec 2004
CA
Potter, Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Wall
Landlord and Tenant, Torts - Other
The council appealed against a finding that it was guilty of misrepresentation and breach of a collateral warranty in its lease of shop premises to the respondent. It had wrongly represented that other leases in the arcade excluded use as an off licence.
[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) EWLVT 289 [2002] EWLVT 289
10 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 288
10 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 290
11 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) EWLVT 292 [2004] EWLVT 292
13 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 21
[ Bailii ]
 
Blumenthal v The Church Commissioners for England [2004] EWCA Civ 1688
13 Dec 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant
The respondent argued that the power given to the Lands Tribunal by the section, did not extend to a power to vary a positive covenant. Held: It could not be right to construe the obligation in the lease as a positive obligation rendering the tenant liable to finding himself in breach of covenant in circumstances which he had no power to prevent. The parties could not have intended that result in 1951. If they had, it would have been clearly spelt out. If estate management considerations were behind the covenants then provision would have been made for another respectable tenant to be substituted.
Law of Property Act 1925 84
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) EWLVT 291 [2004] EWLVT 291
13 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 21
[ Bailii ]
 
Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council [2004] EWHC 2873 (Ch)
14 Dec 2004
ChD
Etherton J
Landlord and Tenant

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
7 Strathray Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd, Ultratown Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1669
15 Dec 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 13
[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 498
15 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
London (1967 Act Decisions) [2002] EWLVT 293
15 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
7 Strathay Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd and Another Times, 10 January 2005
15 Dec 2004
CA
Ward LJ, Arden LJ, Jacob LJ
Landlord and Tenant
The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord's counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid. Held: The landlord's appeal succeeded. The paragraph requiring the statement was a directory requirement, and a failure to comply did not invalidate the notice. It did not form part of the requirements of the section of the statute itself. There could be no possible prejudice to the tenants if the statement was not included.
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 25
1 Cites


 
Scribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1744; [2005] 1 WLR 1847
20 Dec 2004
CA
Rix, Mummery, Carnwath LJJ
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and created a further lease. Held: The judge was right to hold that, following the transfer, RB was the person entitled to the income of the land, and that therefore the forfeiture was valid.
Law of Property Act 1925 141
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
BP Oil UK Ltd and others v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc Times, 12 January 2005; [2004] EWCA Civ 1710
21 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lady Justice Arden, and Lord Justice Gage
Landlord and Tenant
An option was granted to three lessees for the purchase of the reversion. After one ceased to be a lessee, the remaining two purported to exercise the option. The landlord said that only the three could exercise the option together. Held: The option had to be exercised by all three parties, but the remaining two lessess could re-assign the lease into the names of the three companies who could then execute the option.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Corporation of London v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1765; [2005] 1 WLR 1286
21 Dec 2004
CA

Landlord and Tenant
Billingsgate and Smithfield markets sought through the Corporation to prevent Covent Garden market allowing the sale of fish and meat. Held: Parliament could not have intended to allow Covent Garden to carry on an activity in competition with the Smithfield or Billingsgate markets. The grant of a right to hold a market in particular commodities (eg. horticultural produce) imported an implied prohibition on holding a market in any other commodity (eg. meat or fish). Permitting the face-to-face sale of fish or meat at the Nine Elms site was outside the scope of CGMA's statutory powers and was not an activity that could be brought within those powers by a consent under the section 18(1)(f) proviso.
Covent Garden Market Act 1961 18(1)(f)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Midland (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 294
21 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 500
31 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 501
31 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

[ Bailii ]
 
Southern (1967 Act Decisions) [2004] EWLVT 499
31 Dec 2004
LVT

Landlord and Tenant

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