There was a subletting arrangement. United Artists, who were the sub-tenant’s competent landlord under Part II of the 1954 Act, served a notice on the tenant, and then a further notice on the head landlord. The result of second notice was that United Artists ceased to be the competent landlord of the tenant. The tenant did not know, and served a Counter-Notice on, and mistakenly issued proceedings against United Artists. They should have targeted the head landlord, who was now the competent landlord. United Artists then took a fresh over-riding lease, as a result of which they became, once again, the competent landlord of the tenant.
Held: United Artists were estopped from denying that they were the competent landlord at the time the tenant served the notice and issued the proceedings, partly because they were under an obligation to tell the tenant that they had ceased to be the competent landlord, and partly because they must have appreciated that the tenant was labouring under a misapprehension.
Judges:
Dillon Russell and Butler-Sloss LJJ
Citations:
(1989) 60 P and CR 241, [1990] EGLR 103
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.214627