Tag: Landlord and Tenant

Proudreed Ltd v Microgen Holdings Plc: CA 17 Jul 1995

The handing back of keys without more does not of itself constitute a lease surrender. The passage in Tarjoumi as to implied surrender would have been more correct if there was added the phrase: ‘or such as to render it inequitable for the landlord to dispute that the tenancy has ceased.’ Where a new lease was to be granted, any implied surrender would occur only on the grant of the new lease. The circumstances must be such as to render it inequitable for the landlord or the tenant to dispute that the tenancy has ended.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jul-1995, (1995) 72 PandCR 388, [1996] 1 EGLR 89

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tarjomani v Panther Securities Ltd CA 1983
The tenant disputed whether he had surrendered the property in the lease.
Held: The court considered the basis of an implied surrender: ‘In my judgment, it is indeed estoppel that forms the foundation of the doctrine. The doctrine operates . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bellcourt Estates Ltd v Adesina CA 18-Feb-2005
The landlord sought to recover arrears of rent. The tenant said that she had surrendered the lease of the properties. The judge had held that she ceased to occupy the premises from November 2000, after which the landlord did not send a demand for . .
Cited – Artworld Financial Corporation v Safaryan and Others CA 27-Feb-2009
The parties disputed whether the landlord had accepted the surrender of a lease. The tenant had handed in the keys. The landlord claimed rent for the subsequent period. The court had found surrender by operation of law, the landlord taking several . .
Cited – QFS Scaffolding Ltd v Sable and Another CA 17-Jun-2010
The parties disputed whether a lease from S to LDC had been surrendered. S and QFS were negotiating for a renewal lease. No new lease having been agreed the parties agreed to a monthly sum to be paid pending agreement. L then let to a third party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.85063

Kaur v Gill: CA 15 Jun 1995

A landlord could be liable for for orders for damages both for a common law breach of quiet enjoyment under the lease and for the loss of occupation under the 1988 Act. The case of Mason was distinguished because on the basis that the common law damages were awarded here not for the loss of occupation, but for the breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Nourse LJ, Kennedy Lj

Citations:

Times 15-Jun-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 27 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mason v Nwokorie CA 19-Oct-1993
General and aggravated damages at common law are to be set off, against damages awarded under Housing Act 1988 s2. The general damages were attributable to the loss of the right to occupy the premises, and therefore the common law damages award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.82685

Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance Co Ltd: CA 19 Jul 1995

A notice exercising a tenant’s or landlord’s right to break a lease, must be given precisely as required by the break clause in the lease.
Nourse LJ said that the last moment of time on one day is not the same as the first moment of time on the next: ‘The two moments of time, albeit separated by an immeasurable stroke of midnight, have always been treated as separate’, and ‘If a notice clearly and specifically purports to determine a demise for a fixed term on a date not authorised by the lease, the date cannot be corrected simply because it is clear, first, what the correct date ought to be, secondly, that the wrong date was inserted by a slip and, thirdly, that the recipient might guess or even be certain that that was what happened. An exception can only be made where the date specified is an impossibility, either because it has passed or because it is on some other ground inconceivable that it was the date intended.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-1995, Gazette 06-Sep-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1508

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Sidebotham v Holland CA 1895
A house was let to the defendant as a yearly tenant ‘commencing on May 19 instant’, and on 17th November the landlord served a notice to quit ‘on 19th May next’.
Held: It related to a point of time which was held to be common to both dates and . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.83383

Friends Provident Life Office v British Railways Board: CA 31 Jul 1995

An obligation taken on by a subsequent assignee cannot affect liability of original Tenant or surety. Variation of tenancy without intention to create new tenancy does not end surety.

Citations:

Times 31-Jul-1995, Independent 14-Sep-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.80692

Cadogan Estates Ltd v McMahon: CA 9 Jun 1999

A provision in a tenancy agreement that the tenancy would cease upon the bankruptcy of the tenant, continued and became part of the terms of a statutory tenancy following the contractual one. The provision was not inconsistent with the idea of the statutory tenancy, and the term was implied into the statutory tenancy.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith and Laws L.JJ. and Jonathan Parker J.)

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-1999, Gazette 03-Jun-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1470, [1999] 1 WLR 1689, [1999] L and TR 481

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 98(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cadogan Estates Limited v McMahon HL 26-Oct-2000
When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant’s bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Insolvency

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.78822

Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd: CA 24 Oct 1995

Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and were not shams even though they had been intended to work around the 1987 Act.
Criticising the anomalies under the Act, Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘Nothing in section 12 imposes on the new landlord a duty not to dispose of his interest, such as is imposed on the original landlord by section 6(1). It is unclear why not. There is nothing in section 12 which gives the tenants a right to require a subsequent purchaser from the new landlord to dispose of his interest to the tenants’ nominees. A limited right is given by section 16, but it is not equivalent to the right given by section 12(1) against the new landlord. It is again unclear why not. Counsel discounted the suggestion that an acceptance notice under section 6(1)(b) or a purchase notice under section 12(1) might create a equitable interest in the land capable of registration as a land charge or protection by a caution, and I am not inclined to disagree. But one could wish that the Act provided as many answers as it raised problems.’
‘A purchase notice must give adequate notice to the new landlord of the qualifying tenants’ desire to purchase the estate or interest that they should have been offered by the original landlord. That is imperative, in the sense that it must be followed to the letter, but some of the other requirements of section 12 are only directory.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the work of the committee upon whose work the 1987 Act had been founded: ‘the committee intended occupying tenants to have a right to acquire the reversion to their leases when their landlord proposed to part with it, and that the ultimate objective was to give the tenants in a block where the majority wanted it a power to manage the block themselves and so to have a greater say in their own affairs.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

[1996] 1 All ER 312, [1997] QB 858

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Denetower Ltd v Toop CA 1991
The tenants sought to acquire the freehold under the Act. The landlord sought to exclude the gardens and other appurtenancies.
Held: They had been included in the demise of the flats and were to be included in the title to be purchased. The . .
Cited – District Bank v Webb 1958
The court was asked whether a lease constituted an incumbrance on a title: ‘In the first place, I am not satisfied that a lease was an incumbrance to these parties. It is true that in certain circumstancess a lease may be regarded as an incumbrance, . .
Cited – Nolan v Eagle Wharf Developments Ltd LVT 1992
Tenants set out to purchase the freehold under the Act. The landlord had later granted a lease of the roof-space and of a car park. The tenant under that new lease did not come within section 4(2).
Held: The tenants acquired the freehold free . .
Cited – Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates HL 1979
An attempt to determine the meaning of an enactment should not cross the boundary between construction and legislation: ‘My Lords, I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language . .
Cited – Englefield Court Tenants v Skeels LVT 1990
Tenants sought to exercise their rights to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. The landlord had granted a reversionary lease of part to her husband.
Held: The tenants took the freehold subject to the lease. . .
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – Furniss (Inspector of Taxes) v Dawson HL 9-Feb-1983
The transfer of shares to a subsidiary as part of a planned scheme immediately to transfer them to an outside purchaser was regarded as a taxable disposition to the outside purchaser rather than an exempt transfer to a group company. In defined . .
Cited – Gisborne v Burton CA 1988
The land-owner held an agricultural holding. He wanted to let it but, in doing so, to deprive the tenant of the benefit of the statutory regime giving security of tenure. So he let the property to his wife, and his wife granted a sub-tenancy to the . .
Cited – Hilton v Plustitle Ltd CA 1988
The landlord and the ‘tenant’ specifically agreed that the tenancy should be granted to a limited company formed by the tenant, which it was legitimate for them to do so as to avoid the Rent Acts, and the tenant had taken legal advice.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kay-Green and Others v Twinsectra Limited CA 15-May-1996
The former landlord had sold a number of buildings, some of which fell within Part I of the 1987 Act. The section 5 notice had not been served. The vendor had also failed to comply with his duty (under s 5(5)) to ‘sever’ the transaction, and sell . .
Cited – M25 Group Limited v Tudor and others CA 4-Dec-2003
Tenants served notices under the Act requiring information about the disposal of the freehold. The landlords objected that the notices were invalid in failing to give the tenants’ addresses as required under the Act.
Held: The addresses were . .
Cited – Englewood Properties Limited v Patel and Another ChD 16-Feb-2005
The claimant was a property developer, which sought to sell a row of shops at auction. One lot was a Woolworths store, where the company owned both freehold and leasehold interests, with Woolworths occupying an underlease, which the claimant had . .
Cited – Kensington Heights Commercial Company Ltd v Campden Hill Developments Ltd CA 21-Mar-2007
The head landlord had accepted a surrender of the head lease and granted a new lease. but for a longer term. The claimant company sought, on behalf of the qualifying tenants of the estate, an order for the disposal to it of the original lease under . .
Cited – Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another CA 24-Apr-2001
A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from pounds 4,680, to pounds 25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit . .
Cited – Mainwaring and Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 2) CA 3-Oct-1996
The tenants had sought to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. One tenant having signed an ‘irrevocable’ agreement to participate, withdrew his involvement in the purchase, and the remaining number of tenants were no longer a sufficient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.194051

Spath Holme Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee: CA 9 Aug 1995

The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of registered fair rent comparables.
Held: The decision was upheld. A fair rent is a market rent ignoring personal circumstances and scarcity. Comparables were wrongly rejected where discounting for scarcity and security possible. Fair rents were based on market rents, less scarcity and other disregards, and were not reasonable rents in any other sense including their impact on tenants. The Court gave general guidance to rent assessment committees making it clear that they were expected to follow market rent comparables as the best evidence of the starting point for fair rents, to give clear reasons and to explain their determinations with arithmetic if necessary. A ‘fair rent’ under the 1977 Act is the same as a ‘market rent’ under the 1988 Act save for the assumption of no scarcity and allowing for the statutory’disregards’, and that, in assessing a fair rent, regard should be had to market rent comparables if any: ‘… the fair rent to be determined is a market rent less the disregards and discounted for scarcity. Thus, … if there is no scarcity and no disregards then the rents should be the same whether the tenancy is a regulated tenancy or an assured tenancy.’
A fair rent is an adjusted market rent and market rent comparables are relevant to the assessment of a fair rent: ‘In this case there are a number of flats in the same block let on assured tenancies at, by definition, open market rents which are virtually identical to those for which a fair rent is to be determined. In my judgment if, in those circumstances, a Rent Assessment Committee wishes to exercise its discretion to adopt some other comparable or method of assessment it will be failing in its duty to give reasons if it does not explain why.
In this case the third reason given by the Rent Assessment Committee as recorded by the judge was that the registered rent comparables had not been demonstrated to be unsound. That is not, of course, a reason for rejecting the assured tenancy comparables. It is not for the court to say in advance what would be a good reason for doing so but if such a reason involves ‘working through’ such comparables so be it: that consequence is no ground for rejecting the validity of its cause. But it should also be noted that the registered rent comparables are not in their nature any more or less sound than the open market rent with or without discount. Any registered rent has built into at least two variables namely the open market rent and the discount for scarcity. Each should have been considered at the time of the original determination. The assessment of the soundness of that registered rent for use as a comparable would require each of those variables to be reconsidered at the time of their possible use as a comparable.
In this connection it was also objected that if the Rent Assessment Committee were required to give detailed reasons that might necessitate giving detailed arithmetical workings or quantifying the degree of scarcity involved contrary to statements in Guppy’s Property v. Knott No 1 … and Metropolitan Properties v. Laufer … But those statements were made in relation to the facts of those cases. It does not follow that there will not be cases in which the duty to give reasons will require such workings or quantification to be afforded.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ. and Sir John May

Citations:

Ind Summary 28-Aug-1995, Times 09-Aug-1995, (1995) 28 HLR 107, [1995] 2 EGLR 80

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 70(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Spath Home Ltd v Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee QBD 13-Jul-1994
The rent assessment committee had rejected proposed market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the premises, because they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity. The landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sheppard-Capurro, Regina (on the Application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel Admn 27-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Curtis v Chairman of London Rent Assessment Committee; Huntingford and Packford CA 9-Oct-1997
The claimant sought to appeal the quashing of determinations of a fair rent for two properties. . .
See also – Spath Holme Ltd v Chairman of the Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee (No2); Curtis v Similar QBD 2-Jan-1998
A Bill of costs could be presented even though counsel’s fee had not yet been agreed; an extension of time was properly granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.89447

British Telecommunications Plc v Sun Life Assurance Society Plc: CA 3 Aug 1995

A landlord became in breach of his duty of repair under his covenant immediately the repairable defect occurred, not after a reasonable time had been given to make the repair. Nourse LJ summarised the earlier authorities: ‘It is now established by a line of authority culminating in the decision of the House of Lords in O’Brien v Robinson [1973] AC 912 that, where a defect occurs in the demised premises themselves, a landlord is in breach of his obligation to keep them in repair only when he has information about the existence of the defect such as would put a reasonable landlord on inquiry as to whether the works of repair to it are needed and he has failed to carry out the necessary works with reasonable expedition thereafter . .’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-1995, Gazette 20-Sep-1995, Independent 12-Sep-1995, [1996] Ch 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Princes House Ltd and Another v Distinctive Clubs Ltd CA 27-Mar-2007
The landlord sought payment of arrears of service charge. The tenants counterclaimed that the landlord had failed to comply with its repairing obligation, and relied on a cap on the service charge in the lease. . .
Cited – Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt CA 1-Feb-2001
The tenant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had suffered serious injury after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a defective gas fire. The fire had not been maintained and a fall of soot eventually prevented the escape of fumes.
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.78645

Platt and Others v London Underground Ltd: ChD 13 Mar 2001

A landlord let two properties at the same site to the same tenant, who operated two different businesses, one from each site. He unlawfully restricted access to the one site, and caused damage to that business, but in doing so, passers by were diverted to pass by the other business. Though liable for damages in respect of the loss of business at one site, he was able to claim by way of set off the consequent increase in profit at the other. This was so even though such a set off would not be available if the tenant had taken the second lease in the name of a different company. The one loss led predictably to the other gain.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 26-Apr-2001, [2001] 2 EGLR 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rees and Another v Windsor-Clive and Others CA 1-Jul-2020
Reservation Derogation construed normally
Construction of tenancy agreement – correct approach to reservations made in favour of the landlord. The landlord required access to the tenanted farm to allow survey work anticipating development of his adjoining land. The tenant now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.84764

Lord Newborough v Jones: CA 1974

The landlord, not finding his tenant at home, served a notice to quit by pushing it under the door of a house occupied by the tenant. The tenant claimed that the notice had disappeared below the linoleum, and had not been found for some considerable time, and that therefore he had not been served.
Held: The service was valid. The landlord need serve the notice only, by a means which a reasonable person minded to bring the document to the attention of the person to be served would adopt.

Citations:

[1974] 3 WLR 52, [1974] 3 All ER 17

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 92(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.223119

Doe d. Whayman v Chaplin: 1310

Four persons were the joint lessors on a periodic tenancy. Three only of the joint lessors gave notice to quit against the wishes of the fourth. At one stage the court inclined to the view that in order to determine the tenancy all four lessors had to agree. However after further argument it was held that each of the three who had given notice to quit was entitled to put an end to the tenancy of his share and the three who had given notice to quit were therefore entitled to recover three parts of the land. As a result, the defendant apparently was entitled to stay on the land in right of his tenancy of one part as tenant in common with the three lessors who had given notice. the giving of notice to quit by three out of the four joint lessors was not sufficient to determine the tenancy of the whole land.

Citations:

(1310) 3 Taunt 120

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

No longer good law – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk HL 5-Dec-1991
One tenant of two joint tenants of a house left and was granted a new tenancy on condition that the existing one of the house, still occupied by her former partner, was determined. She gave a notice to quit as requested, the council claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.272276

7 H.3 wast 141: 1223

CS Attachment against a tenant in dower as to why she had assarted one hundred oak trees and a mill had been broken and drained and the mill-pond also. The tenant said that her late husband M. by the king’s order had broken the millpond and taken all the fish for the king’s benefit and she had subsequently repaired it as best she could; as to the mill, she said it is not wasted because in winter it can grind though not in summer for because of the war but no waste was committed by her. This was adjudged a good plea. The complainant said that she had committed waste after the prohibition and produced suit of this and thus a jury trial on this etc.

Citations:

[1223] [Co Litt 53a (h)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.196923

21 E.1 Adam’s Case: 1293

(Year Books) If the sheriff hold the inquest and return that the grange and bakehouse were burned by accident, and do not say whether the conflagration was caused by the default of the tenant or not, the sheriff will be again ordered to enquire whether the conflagration was caused by the default of the tenant or not; and if he return that it was by the default of the tenant, he (Adam) will recover his damages. Adam was the person of whom the defendant held the tenement for life.

Citations:

(1293) YB (RS) 21 and 22 Ed1 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.196732

8 E.2 wast. 111: 1315

In waste where the waste was found of three oak-trees worth etc. and two hundred willow-trees the plaintiff asked for judgment in accordance with the verdict.
INGE, J. did not adjudge waste in such form that he recover the place wasted for the small amount and it is not properly to be accounted waste in respect of the willows in case they grow again.
Herle. Then adjudge her damages.
1NGE, J.. We can never adjudge one without the other and so you are to take nothing by your writ etc. neither damages nor the place wasted.

Citations:

[1315] [Co. Litt:53a (l)]

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dayani v London Borough of Bromley TCC 25-Nov-1999
LA Tenant liable for permissive waste
The local authority was tenant of properties which it sub-licensed to homeless persons for three years was liable for having allowed the properties to deteriorate. It was claimed that they were liable for permissive waste as tenants for a fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.196924

Robb’s Trust, The Governors of, Against Edwards: SCS 26 May 2015

Extra Division, Inner House. The House was asked whether, in respect of a lease governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, in terms of which the landlords have served on the tenant a notice to quit which is disputed by the tenant, and the dispute proceeds to arbitration, section 23(4) of the Act has the effect that the lease continues and rent remains due and payable until the date of issue of the arbiter’s award.

Judges:

Lord Menzies

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 39

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547650

Official Custodian for Charities v Parway Estates Developments (In Liquidation): CA 1985

The consideration for the grant of a lease was not a capital sum, but substantial building works. Application was made for its forfeiture.
Held: Dillon LJ assumed that the words ‘if the tenant shall enter into liquidation whether compulsorily or voluntarily’ in a re-entry clause in a lease refer to the making of the winding up order.
Save in relation to non-payment of rent, the power to grant relief from forfeiture to lessees is now exclusively contained in section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Dillon LJ said in relation to section 9(3) and (4) of the 1972 Act: ‘The question then is whether, even so, it is implicit in section 9 (4), or necessary in order to give effect to section 9 (4), that, after an official notification of an event has become fully effective, all persons must be treated as having constructive notice of that event. Three matters can be urged in support of the argument, viz.: (i) if an event has not been officially notified a company can still rely on it against a person who has actual knowledge of it, and so official notification is in a sense treated as the counterpart of actual knowledge, in enabling the company to rely on the event; (ii) during the period of grace before the official notification has become fully effective, the person concerned can prevent the company relying on the event by showing he was unavoidably prevented from knowing of the event, absence of the event being treated in the period of grace as countervailing the official notification: and (iii) it is difficult to think of the circumstances in which a company will wish to rely as against a third party on the happening of the event of its own liquidation and in which the real issue will not be the third party’s knowledge of that event rather than the happening of the event itself.
This question whether official notification of a relevant event constitutes notice of that event to all the world, is an important question. If indeed the notification does constitute notice at all, the very many landlords who are not in the habit of studying the London Gazette regularly of effecting regular searches of the files of their company tenants in the Companies registry will be at risk of inadvertently waiving the forfeiture of leases by accepting rent after the company tenants went into liquidation.
The deputy judge, after considering the wording of section 9(4) and views expressed in Palmer’s Company Law 23rd ed., vol. 1, pp. 184, 185 – 186, concluded that subsection (4) did not impute knowledge to anyone. It was essentially negative in its impact. It provided that a company cannot rely upon a relevant event if it is not in the Gazette but it did not make the positive counter proposition that a company can rely upon that event – sc. it can rely upon everyone having notice of that event – merely because it is in the Gazette. I agree with the deputy judge’s analysis of the subsection and with his conclusion.
I would add two further comments. In the first place, I do not think that the link, such that it is, in section 9(4), between official notification of a relevant event, and actual knowledge of the event if it has not been officially notified, requires that official notification should be treated as importing notice of the event to everyone. The object of the legislation is that persons dealing with a company should be officially given an opportunity to finding out important information concerning the company vis-a-vis those who have actual knowledge of the relevant event. Hence the qualification of the restriction imposed by the subsection of the company. It is not necessary to treat official notification as the equivalent of actual knowledge in all circumstances.
In the second place, among the events, other than liquidation and the appointment of a liquidator, listed in section 9(4) as events on which a company cannot rely in the absence of official notification are making of any alteration in the memorandum of association of the company, including, of course, its object clause, and the making of any change among the company’s directors. But it is plain to my mind from section (9)1 that a person dealing in good faith with a company is not to be treated as having constructive notice (as under the previous ultra vires doctrine of English law) of the terms of the company’s objects clause, whether in its original form or as from time to time altered, and is not to be treated as having constructive notice of the composition from time to time of the Old Aachener Re board of directors of the company. The tenor of the section is thus against imputing constructive notice of the relevant events to persons dealing with a company, while ensuring that they have an opportunity to find information about those events.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1985] Ch 151

Statutes:

European Communities Act 1972 9(3) 9(4), Law of Property Act 1925 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, European

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.592685

Burton v Camden London Borough Council: CA 15 Jan 1998

A deed of release executed by one joint tenant in favour of the other did not bind the landlord. Save that in a periodic tenancy the old tenant would be released on the next renewal.

Citations:

Times 15-Jan-1998, Gazette 28-Jan-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.78770

Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk: CA 2 Dec 1997

The landlord brought proceedings against the tenant for failure to keep his tenanted farm in a good state of repair. The judge awarded the cost of the landlord doing the repairs himself, making no discount for the possibility that the tenant might in fact remedy the breaches before the end of the tenancy. The tenant appealed.
Held: Since the tenant might decide to repair himself during the term and there was no evidence before the trial judge of the Court of Appeal that the landlord intended to carry out any works of repair at all, the costs of the repairs might be regarded as being a starting point. The court discounted these for the uncertainties as to whether the work would be done. The diminution in the value of a reversion for a tenant’s failure to repair is not represented by the undiscounted cost of repair where the tenancy’s duration is not uncertain. The court gave guidance on what the court should do in the circumstances where the evidential material as to loss is less than ideal.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Millett and Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 2872, [1998] 35 EG 81

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bonham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel 1948
A party claiming damage for breach of a covenant to repair in a lease must prove that damage. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Latimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Cited – Latimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Damages

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.79627

Chesters Accomodation Agency Ltd v Abebrese: CA 18 Jul 1997

A court action begun by the owner’s agent in his own name rather than in the landlord’s name for possession was ineffective. The resulting possession order set aside. He had no locus standi. Only the landlord has that power.

Citations:

Times 28-Jul-1997, Gazette 03-Sep-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2137

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.79021

Wallace v C Brian Barratt and Son Limited and Lock: CA 19 Mar 1997

The court was asked whether the defendant company, which was the tenant under an agricultural tenancy agreement of land comprising arable fields, was in breach of a covenant in the tenancy not to assign, underlet, or part with or share possession or occupation of the whole or any part of the holding by virtue of farming the holding through a partnership. The individual partners were related and held most of the shares in the tenant company.
Held: There was no breach of the covenant since, among other things, the partnership activities were carried out as agent for the tenant company.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1281, [1997] EGLR 1, (1997) 74 P and CR 408, [1997] EG 40

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Arbitration on Notice) Order 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 14-Oct-2004
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture, Arbitration

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141677

Edwards and Walkden (Norfolk) Ltd and Others v City of London: ChD 12 Sep 2012

Claims by tenants of stalls, shops and offices at Smithfield Market in London for new business tenancies to be granted at rents and on terms to be determined by the Court under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2527 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464604

City and Country Properties Ltd v Yeates: UTLC 17 Jul 2012

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – premium – deferment rate – whether Sportelli starting point to be adjusted to reflect different growth rates in Horsham and Prime Central London and increased management burden with flats – whether any adjustment for flats affected by presence of head lease – deferment rate reduced from 6% to 5.5%.

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 227 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463428

Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council: CA 20 Jan 1997

Citations:

[1997] 1 EGLR 104, [1997] EWCA Civ 806

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council ChD 1-Apr-1999
It might be correct for a landlord to refuse consent to assignment where its objection to the proposed user was that it was generally undesirable, and there need be shown no necessary implication that the use would not be allowed by the lease. . .
See Also – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 3-Feb-2000
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after . .
See Also – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141202

Northampton Borough Council v Lovatt and Lovatt: CA 3 Jan 1997

Misbehaviour of a tenant in the immediate neighbourhood of tenanted property could be a nuisance in respect to that tenancy.

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1997, Gazette 11-Mar-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 821

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Sch 2 Ground 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.84352

Plantation Wharf Management Company Ltd v Jackson and Another: UTLC 15 Dec 2011

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – interpretation of lease – legal costs and expenses properly part of charge – section 20C – LVT’s exercise of discretion to disallow part of costs – reliance on ‘repeated over-budgeting’ – challenge succeeds

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 488(LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462573

Berryman v Hounslow London Borough Council: CA 20 Nov 1996

No damages were to be awarded for a tenant’s injury suffered whilst climbing the stairs when the lift had not been repaired.

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Land, Housing, Personal Injury

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.78369

Solitaire Property Management Company and Another v Holden and Others: UTLC 10 Apr 2012

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – reserve funds – lease providing that reserve funds could be used to meet any temporary deficiencies in monies available for general expenditure – whether LVT should have embarked on any consideration of the question of whether monies from the reserve funds had been so spent and (if so) whether any legally sufficient reasons given for its conclusions on this point and related points (raised by LVT) under Article 1 of First Protocal of ECHR and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 – jurisdiction of LVT – whether LVT entitled to disagree with and to refuse to follow a High Court decision regarding application of s.20(B) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – reasonableness of service charges – costs

Judges:

Huskinson Judge

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 86 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20B, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Consumer

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460252

Savva and Another v Houssein: CA 24 Apr 1996

The tenant had broken a negative covenant against making alterations, namely not to change the exterior sign and not to alter the premises without consent. The landlord sought to forfeit the lease.
Held: The breach of the covenant was remediable if the harm caused can be rectified. The breach was a continuing one. Possession was denied.
Staughton LJ said: ‘In my judgment . . the question is: whether the remedy referred to is the process of restoring the situation to what it would have been if the covenant had never been broken, or whether it is sufficient that the mischief resulting from a breach of the covenant can be removed. When something has been done without consent, it is not possible to restore the matter wholly to the situation which it was in before the breach. The moving finger writes and cannot be recalled. That is not to my mind what is meant by a remedy, it is a remedy if the mischief caused by the breach can be removed. In the case of a covenant not to make alterations without consent or not to display signs without consent, if there is a breach of that, the mischief can be removed by removing the signs or restoring the property to the state it was in before the alterations.’
Aldous LJ spoke of negative and positive covenants, saying: ‘There is in my view nothing in the statute, nor in logic, which requires different considerations between a positive and negative covenant, although it may be right to differentiate between particular covenants. The test is one of effect.’

Judges:

Aldous LJ, Staughton LJ, Sir John May

Citations:

Times 06-May-1996, (1997) 73 P and CR 150, [1996] EWCA Civ 1302, [1996] EWCA Civ 1295, [1996] 2 EGLR 65

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Expert Clothing Service and Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd and Another CA 2-Apr-1985
The defendant tenant appealed from refusal of relief from forfeiture. At the trial it was conceded that there had been breaches of covenant by the defendant company consisting of the failure to reconstruct the premises by a stated date, and to give . .

Cited by:

Cited – Akici v LR Butlin Ltd CA 2-Nov-2005
The tenant appealed against forfeiture of his lease for breach of a qualified covenant against assignment. It was said that the tenant had attempted to hide from the landlord the assignment of the premises to his company or its shared occupation. . .
Cited – Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd SC 5-Nov-2014
Old breaches did not support possession order
The mobile home tenant was said to have paraded on the caravan park in combat style clothing, and disguising his face, causing fear among the other tenants. He now appealed against confirmation of the order for possession. He said that there had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.89033

Akinbolu v Hackney London Borough Council: CA 13 May 1996

The fact that a secure tenant was an illegal and an overstaying immigrant and therefore should not have been granted a tenancy, gave no right to the council as landlord summarily to evict him.

Citations:

Gazette 22-May-1996, Times 13-May-1996, (1996) 29 HLR 259

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others CA 20-Oct-2009
The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.77701

E.On UK Plc v Gilesports Ltd: ChD 31 Jul 2012

The Claimant sought a declaration that the Defendant remained the tenant of the property in Nuneaton under a Sublease and arrears of rent, alternatively damages. E.ON is the leasehold owner of the property under a lease.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2172 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD 6-Oct-2016
Consent to assignment – delay
Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.463319

The Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Ubah: CA 21 Mar 1996

The respondent mortgagee had obtained an order for possession against the mortgagor freeholder, referred to in the judgment as ‘the Chief’, who had, prior to the mortgage, granted a tenancy to the appellant.
Held: The landlord’s retention of a right to use the kitchen made the tenancy a restricted tenancy even though no use was possible by the landlord under the contract in that situation.
CS Millett LJ: ‘The appellant’s evidence was that in 1987, that is before the mortgage was granted to the respondents, the appellant arranged for work to be carried out on the flat. The Chief later agreed with him that he would pay andpound;13,873 towards the cost of those repairs and in the words of the appellant ‘the Chief told me to set my rent against what he owed me’. That agreement was effective between the parties, but it did not confirm upon the appellant an interest in land capable of binding successors in title to the Chief whether with or without notice of the arrangements unless the right the right of deduction which was given to the appellant fell within one of the two established rights of deduction which are capable of binding successors in title’. And
‘As against the Chief in my opinion the appellant may well be entitled to deduct the amount which the Chief owes him from payments of rent which are due to the Chief. But the money judgment below is entirely in respect of rent to due the respondents after the date that they had notified the appellant that they had taken possession. The appellant has no right of set-off capable of binding successors in title such as the respondents. It is, of course, settled law that an interest which is not capable of binding successors in title cannot be an over-riding interest within section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Apr-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996, [1996] 73 P and CR at 500

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .
Cited – Lee-Parker v Izzett (1) ChD 1971
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence of set-off at law to a claim for unpaid rent. Justice Goff discussed the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89837

Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 23 Feb 1995

Property company receiver liable to pay VAT collected on rents to Commissioners.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 01-May-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 18-Nov-1993
VAT in rents received by receiver was payable to customs. The receiver is a VAT taxable person even if he is appointed under a floating charge. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, VAT, Landlord and tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89008

Pennel v Payne and Another: CA 13 Dec 1994

An upwards notice to quit given by the head tenant allows the Head Landlord also to determine the sub-tenancy. This is the case whether or not the subtenancy was granted within the terms of the headlease.

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1994, Ind Summary 23-Jan-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Overruled – Brown v Wilson 1949
A subtenant’s lease is not protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act where the head lease is terminated by the landlord, but if the head tenant determines his own tenancy the sub-tenancy is protected and will be promoted in his stead: ‘the law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.84656

Mainwaring v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 1): CA 20 Feb 1996

The claimant sought an order allowing the sale of the freehold of the building where she occupied an apartment. The trustees, when proposing to sell the building to the trustees of the Wellcome Trust, should have served notice under section 5 of the Act on the appellant and other qualifying tenants. The section provides for the service of notices by a landlord who proposes to make a relevant disposal.
Held: The ‘Relevant disposal’ by a Landlord happens on completion, not on exchange of contracts. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘The Act provides that if, in certain closely defined situations, a landlord proposes to dispose of his interest in premises of a certain kind, the tenants living in those premises shall have a priority right to acquire that interest on the same terms as those on which the landlord is willing to dispose of the interest to another. The long title of the 1987 Act describes it as ‘An Act to confer on tenants of flats rights with respect to the acquisiton by them of their landlord’s reversion”
and ‘the choice between the competing contentions . . must be governed by the proper construction of the 1987 Act and not be consideration of how the proper construction may in practice affect either one party or the other.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-1996, [1996] 2 All ER 220

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Mainwaring and Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity (No 2) CA 3-Oct-1996
The tenants had sought to purchase the freehold under the 1987 Act. One tenant having signed an ‘irrevocable’ agreement to participate, withdrew his involvement in the purchase, and the remaining number of tenants were no longer a sufficient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83336

Marath and Another v MacGillivray: CA 5 Feb 1996

A landlord’s notice to the effect that ‘3 month’s rent due’ was a sufficiently precise demand to allow the tenant to know the nature of his default, and the notice was valid. the relevant notice said: ‘Signed: RM If signed by agent, name and address of agent: Acting Agent RM’ with the address. This notice had been served as an exhibit to an affidavit by the agent.
Held: A notice served for the purposes of section 20 of the 1988 Act (notwithstanding that it was not a valid notice for the purposes of section 20 itself, because it was served after rather than before the ‘assured tenancy’ was entered into) provided sufficient notice for the purposes of section 48(1).
Sir Iain Glidewell said: ‘I see the strength in the argument that if it be proved that the landlord, or his solicitors acting on his behalf, had quite deliberately ensured that payment which otherwise would have come from a housing authority was delayed until after the date of the hearing, in order to enable the landlord to prove that more than three months’ rent was in fact unpaid, a court would be slow to base a judgment upon more than three months’ rent being unpaid. Precisely how it would go about reflecting that unwillingness to give judgment when it is required by statute to do so, I have not considered.’

Judges:

Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-1996, [1996] 28 HLR 484

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 8 20, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd CA 10-Aug-1994
The duty placed on a Landlord by the section is to give to the tenant a notice of an address for service for the landlord in writing. Stuart Smith LJ said: ‘what the section requires is that the tenant is told, so that he knows, the landlord’s name . .

Cited by:

Cited – Drew-Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh CA 13-May-1999
The claimant landlord had sought to assert that the let was an assured shorthold tenancy. On a rehearing, the tenant said no notice had been served under section 20. The landlord also now asserted non-payment of rent.
Held: A notice which was . .
Cited – Leeds v London Borough of Islington Admn 29-Jan-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83393

Duke of Westminster and Others v Birrane: CA 17 Nov 1994

A basement extending under the house next door means that the property with the basement is not a not a dwelling-house for leasehold enfranchisement purposes. The result would create difficulties with flying freeholds. ‘The primary purpose of section 2(2) must have been to exclude from the operation of the Act houses in respect of which the inability of one freehold owner to enforce positive obligations against successors in title of the other would be likely to prejudice the enjoyment of the house or another part of the structure.’ and the test of materiality under section 2 was to be assessed on the basis that ‘if the part of the house which lies above or below a part of the structure not comprised in it is of sufficient substance or significance to make it likely that enfranchisement will prejudice the enjoyment of the house or another part of the structure, whether by reason of the inability of one freehold owner to enforce positive obligations against successors in title of the other or otherwise, then it is a material part of the house within section 2(2).’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-1995, Times 17-Nov-1994, Ind Summary 19-Dec-1994, [1995] QB 262

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 1(1) 2(1) 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.80163

Crawley Borough Council v Ure: CA 23 Feb 1995

A notice to quit given by one of two joint tenants was binding on the other tenant despite there having been no consultation between them.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1995, [1996] 1 QB 13

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 26-3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sims v Dacorum Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
Husband and wife had been joint tenants of the council. On the breakdown of the marriage, W gave notice to quit. H defended the council’s possession action, saying that it was an infringement of his human rights for him to lose his tenancy and home. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.79602