The claimant housing association had raised its rents. The tenants objected that they were unlawful not having complied with the tenancy agreements. They said the clause allowed only one increase in each June of a year, and then only if 28 days notice had been given before the first Monday of June.
Held: The landlord’s appeal succeeded. The review clause was of a type not previously condidered by the courts, and against a non-commercial background. ‘Riverside is entitled to increase the rent once a year on 28 days notice, which notice can take effect any time on or after the first Monday in June.
It is true that the words ‘with effect from’ could be taken as meaning ‘with immediate effect from’ but they can mean ‘on or at any time after.’
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Times 07-May-2007,  UKHL 20,  18 EG 152,  29 EG 144,  L and TR 22,  NPC 46,  HLR 31,  2 EGLR 69,  1 P and CR 13,  4 All ER 97
England and Wales
Appeal from – Gary White, Ellen White v Riverside Housing Association Ltd CA 6-Dec-2005
The Association’s tenants said that a clause in their tenancy agreement would allow for an increase in the rent only once a year, and then only in June and if 28 days notice was given before the first Monday in June.
Held: The notices were . .
Cited – United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council HL 1978
The House was asked whether a failure by a lessor to keep strictly to the timetable laid down in a rent review clause in a lease necessarily deprived the lessor of the benefit of the rent review.
Held: A stipulation as to time in an option . .
Cited – Raineri v Miles HL 1980
Damages may be awarded for a delay in completion under an open contract even though time was not of the essence. The failure to complete on the day fixed was a breach. Lord Edmund-Davies said: ‘The fact that time had not been declared to be of the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.251485