References: (1874) LR 9 Ex 99
Coram: Kelly CB, Cleasby, Bramwell BB
There had been an assignment of a lease of coal mines but at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff, the coals had already been substantially worked out. The grantor did not have title in the coals and was in breach of the covenant of title. The plaintiff bought the land and built houses upon it. The houses were damaged by subsidence caused by the underground mining.
Held: There had been no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment which had been given by the vendor.
Cleasby B said: ‘It seems to me impossible to say that there is a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment by reason of the subsidence of the house in consequence of the previous removal of the coal. This subsidence of the house was a necessary consequence of the condition of the property bought by the plaintiff.’
Bramwell B took the view that a breach of covenant for title was a once for all breach and completed at the time when the assignment was executed and hence would have been statute-barred. Kelly CB differed, held that it was a continuous breach. He drew a distinction between a covenant for title and a covenant for quiet enjoyment.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Southwark London Borough Council -v- Mills/Tanner; Baxter -v- Camden London Borough Council HL (Times 22-Oct-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, Gazette 03-Nov-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 1 AC 1, [1999] UKHL 40, [1999] 3 WLR 939, [1999] 3 EGLR 35, [2000] 32 HLR 148, [1999] 45 EG 179, (2000) 79 P & CR D13, [1999] EGCS 122, [2000] Env LR 112, [1999] NPC 123, [2000] L & TR 159, [2000] BLGR 138)
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .