Schalit v Joseph Nadler Ltd: CA 1933

Mr Nadler was a lessee of property, part of which he sublet to the plaintiff. In 1931 he made a declaration of trust, under which he declared that the property was held in trust for his company, Joseph Nadler Ltd. Shortly after the company purported to distrain for arrears of rent under the subtenancy. The plaintiff issued proceedings for damages for illegal distress. The company argued that it was a person entitled to receive the rents, and therefore under section 141(2) it was able to enforce the covenants.
Held: It did not qualify the ability of an absolute beneficial owner to recover rent. Section 141(2) did not by itself permit the beneficiary of a trust of the landlord’s reversionary interest to distrain for rent. The company was not entitled to the rents as such, but only to an account of the ‘net proceeds’ after meeting any liabilities of Mr Nadler under the headlease

Judges:

Goddard J

Citations:

[1933] 2 KB 79

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTurner v Walsh CA 1909
The landlord sought to enforce the tenant’s repairing covenants. After the tenancy had been created, he had charged his interest. The tenant said that, since the lessor had conveyed his interest by way of mortgage, the right to sue lay exclusively . .

Cited by:

CitedWembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and Others ChD 4-Apr-2007
Land at Wembley stadium had been sold to the defendants and leased back. The defendant assigned the freehold within the group, declaring that the lease was held in trust for the original freeholder. The claimant now said that the defendant assignee . .
Not approvedScribes West Ltd v Relsa Anstalt and others CA 20-Dec-2004
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 . .
CitedStodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.263794