Tag: Landlord and Tenant

Enterprise Inns Plc v The Forest Hill Tavern Public House Ltd and Others: ChD 21 Oct 2010

The defendants, tied tenants of the claimant, sought to defend applications for forfeiture of their leases saying that the claimant’s terms and beer prices were not set in good faith at reasonably competitive levels.

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2368 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425382

Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd: ChD 1 Apr 1998

The plaintiff was tenant of premises under a lease granted by the defendant’s predecessor in title. He vacated the premises in July 1996, and on 17 November 1997 wrote asking the defendant for a licence to sublet them to a pet shop business. The plaintiff enclosed the proposed subtenant’s accounts with the application. On 20 November 1997, the defendant, by telephone, indicated that consent would not be forthcoming because the pet shop use was inappropriate for the location and would diminish the value of the defendant’s interest in the premises, and that the accounts were not strong enough. There was further discussion between the plaintiff and the defendant before, on 15 January 1998, the defendant confirmed that it was not prepared to grant consent. The defendant relied on the two reasons that it had previously given. The plaintiff claimed declarations that the defendant had unreasonably withheld its consent to the subletting, and that in the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to sublet the premises to the proposed subtenant.
Held: The landlord’s failure to state in writing why consent to the assignment applied for was being withheld, made his refusal of consent unreasonable, despite there being otherwise possible good grounds for such a refusal. He was not able later to put forward reasons not advanced at the time. ‘In other words, if the landlord does not within a reasonable time give his reasons for refusing consent in writing, then it is not open to him to rely on those reasons in court for justifying his withholding of consent. If Sir Richard Scott V-C. is correct, then a landlord, who has given reasons in writing for refusing his consent, cannot, when subsequently seeking to justify his refusal of consent, rely on reasons which he has not given. If that is right, then in a case where a landlord gives no reasons for refusing consent, it would seem very odd if he could subsequently rely on reasons which he had in his mind but had not specified. Therefore it seems to me to follow that the policy of the Act of 1988 is that a landlord who has not given his reasons for refusing consent within a reasonable time cannot thereafter justify his refusal of consent by putting forward any reasons even though he had them in his mind. Given that the Act specifically requires consent or refusal of consent in writing, I find it hard to see how one can resist the conclusion that, if I am right so far, reasons given orally are not sufficient. To put it more succinctly, the logic of Sir Richard Scott V-C’s observations and decision in the Norwich Union case is that, construing the covenant together with the Act of 1988, it is not now open to a landlord to put forward reasons justifying the withholding of consent if those are reasons which were not put forward in accordance with section 1(3)(b), that is they were not reasons which were put forward in writing within a reasonable time. Mr Jones says, with some force, in relation to the facts of this case, that that produces an unfair result. The defendant made it clear what his reasons were and the plaintiff was in no doubt about them. I accept that, in this case, my conclusion might be perceived as wreaking something of an injustice on the defendant. However, as the Vice-Chancellor emphasised, the purpose of the Act of 1988 was, among other things, to introduce a degree of certainly, ie to enable parties to know where they stood. What was said in oral conversations can be the subject of fundamental and genuine dispute. Even in this case, where there is a substantial measure of agreement between the parties so far as what was said, there are small disputes which could have been significant, namely whether consent was clearly and genuinely refused and whether reasons were given. The advantage of the conclusion of principle I have reached is that, once one requires any refusal with reasons to be in writing, the court can be in no real doubt as to whether and when refusal was given and the reasons on which the refusal was based. Landlords on the whole should be aware of their obligations under the Act of 1988. I appreciate that there are many small, individual landlords. However, Parliament has taken the view that if the landlord wishes to object to an assignment for underletting, he must make his position clear within a reasonable time, and, in my judgment, he must make it clear in writing.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Gazette 01-Apr-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 551

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 1 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss CA 1982
When considering whether to give consent to an assignment of a lease, the landlord need consider only his own interests.
Slade LJ said: ‘I find it rather more surprising that, when the landlords came subsequently to question the validity of . .

Cited by:

Approved – Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and Another CA 31-Jan-2003
The tenant applied for a licence to assign the lease under section 1. The landlord refused consent, but the parties continued to negotiate. The tenant argued that the landlord’s continuation of negotiations showed the earlier counter-notice to have . .
Cited – Design Progression Limited v Thurloe Properties Limited ChD 25-Feb-2004
The tenant applied for a licence to assign. The landlord failed to reply, anticipating that delay would allow it to generate a better lease renewal.
Held: The delay was unreasonable and a breach of the landlord’s statutory duty, and was an act . .
Cited – Aubergine Enterprises Limited v Lakewood International Limited CA 26-Feb-2002
A sought confirmation that it had successfully rescinded a contract for the purchase of a leasehold property from L. Either party was to be able to rescind, if consent to the assignment had not obtained before three days before completion. There . .
Cited – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2004
The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting.
Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80625

William Hill (Southern) Limited v Cabras: CA 1986

The tenant had affixed a sign to the premises with the landlord’s consent. The new landlord said that any licence was revocable. The judge had held that the lease had specifically granted a right to exhibit the signs.
Held: The landlord’s appeal was dismissed. The right to maintain the signs was in the demise of the appurtenances to the demised premises, and ‘together with the appurtenances thereto in clause 1(a) could not, in the context of the present lease, be treated as mere surplusage. Bearing in mind the permitted use of the premises and the practical and commercial considerations, it was to be supposed that the appurtenances included the right to maintain the signs. That view was not invalidated by clause 3 which did not refer to appurtenances as such and which made express exception to the rights specifically granted by the lease. Further, applying the general principle that the grantor shall not derogate from his grant, the court would not construe a general provision, most of all an exception in very general terms, such as that in clause 3, to take away that which had already been granted in the dispositive provisions of the lease.’
Nourse LJ said: ‘There was some debate as to whether it could be said that the appurtenances were specifically granted on the ground that the word is an entirely general one. However, I do not think there is much in that point. The appurtenances were clearly granted expressly and I think that is enough, particularly when the general principle to which I now come is borne in mind.’ and
‘Mr Sparrow submits that the court will not construe a general provision in a lease, particularly an exception and most of all an exception couched in very general terms such as those in clause 3, so as to take away with the other hand that which has already been granted by the one hand in the dispositive provisions of the lease. Although Wheeldon v Burrows was a case on implied rights, I accept Mr Sparrow’s proposition with regard to the construction of express rights, it being, as Thessiger LJ said, consonant to reason and common sense and also, I would add, to the commercial realities of a case such as this.’

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1986] 54 PandCR 42

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Paragon Finance plc v City of London Real Property Co Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2001
The claimants were underlessees of an office building. The offices had enjoyed a right of light for over a hundred years, and the freehold had acquired an easement of light by lost modern grant. The roadway having been closed, the defendant head . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.267164

Haigh, Haigh v Sturman: FTTPC 25 Nov 2013

Boundary Dispute

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 988 (PC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stephenson and Another v Johnson and Another CA 12-Jul-2000
There had been a dispute as to the correct boundary between two properties in North Yorkshire. The land had been in common ownership until 1973. The 1973 conveyance showed the boundary in a position which the claimants said was determinative. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.623195

Wilson v Lesley Place (Maidstone) Ltd Rtm Company Ltd: UTLC 13 May 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – liability – acquisition by RTM company – service charges including contributions to reserves – whether tenant entitled to set off against service charges payable to RTM company amounts paid to landlord after the date of acquisition in respect of service charges for previous years – held she was not – appeal dismissed – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s 94

Judges:

George Bartlett QC, President

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 139 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416749

City of Westminster v Fleury and Others: UTLC 12 May 2010

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether the cost of roof recovering works reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount – no evidence to support LVT decision as to cost of repairs – LVT failed to properly consider merits of a major contract compared with separate smaller contracts – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s. 19.

Judges:

Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 136 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416744

Railtrack Plc v Gojra and Gojra: CA 28 Nov 1997

The tenant served two notices under the Act.
Held: The tenant’s application was out of time. If the first notice was valid, a later notice did not act to restart time running and the application for a new tenancy had to be begun within four months of the first.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2863, [1998] 1 EGLR 63

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24(1)(b), Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chiswell v Griffon Land and Estates Ltd CA 1975
Megaw LJ said: ‘Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 lays down the manner in which service of a notice can be effected. It is provided, as what I may call at any rate the primary means of effecting service, that it is to be done either by . .
Cited – Polyviou v Seeley 1980
The landlord served two notices under the 1954 Act.
Held: The tenant’s counter-notice was out of time. If the first notice was valid, a counter-notice served within four months of the second but not the first was out of time. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Beanby Estates Ltd v Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Ltd ChD 9-May-2003
The landlord had served a notice under the 1954 Act. The tenant served a counter notice, but the question was whether he was late, or out of time.
Held: The combination of the various provisions meant that the landlord’s notice had irrevocably . .
Cited – C A Webber (Transport) Ltd v Railtrack plc CA 15-Jul-2003
A notice served under s25 of the 1954 Act, being sent by recorded delivery to the tenant at its place of abode, was irrebuttably deemed to have been served on the day it was posted. Section 23 of the 1927 Act operated to disapply section 7 of the . .
Cited – Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Moustafa 1999
A landlord gave notice to the original lessees of business premises, under section 17 of the 1995 Act. It was sent by recorded delivery to the lessees’ last known residential address but was returned to the sender by the Royal Mail. Nevertheless the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.143262

Sarum Properties Ltd v Webb and Others: UTLC 21 Oct 2009

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – price – appeal against LVT’s determination of extended lease value, capitalisation rate and effect of right to enfranchise on value of existing lease – on review held that LVT wrongly failed to give proper consideration to two comparables – appeal allowed following rehearing – premium increased from andpound;12,788 to andpound;18,475.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 188 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415039

Circle Thirty Three Housing Trust Ltd v Segovia: UTLC 15 Oct 2009

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – construction of tenancy – whether landlord entitled to serve notice to increase charges for heating and hot water – whether earlier year’s shortfall incurred during previous tenancy recoverable from current tenant – appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 203 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415038

Dependable Homes Ltd v Mann and Another: UTLC 8 Sep 2009

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – lease extension – premium – comparables – adjustments – relativity – graph of graphs – LVT determination outside range of disputed values – appeal allowed – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 section 48 and Schedule 13

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 171 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415026

Hyde Housing Association Ltd v Lane and Others: UTLC 17 Sep 2009

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – LVT wrongly failed to have regard to the evidence – reasonableness of estimates as to likely future expenditure for the purposes of a reserve fund – inadequate evidence justifying full amount of predicted future expenditure – appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 180 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415029

Freehold Properties Ltd, Re 42 Elmay Road: UTLC 11 Sep 2009

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – houses – price – whether valuation to be carried out by the usual two-stage approach or in three stages including Haresign addition – held no objection in principle to three stages – appellant’s valuer fails to justify use of Sportelli generic rate by following previous guidance from Tribunal – appeals dismissed – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9(1).

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 172 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415027

Morgan v Fletcher and Others: UTLC 28 Sep 2009

UTLC SERVICE CHARGE – whether there is jurisdiction to vary as unsatisfactory the computation of service charges payable under a lease on grounds other than those set out in section 35(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 186 (LC), [2010] 1 P and CR 17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415032

Westminster v Ch2006 Ltd: UTLC 17 Sep 2009

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Section 24 – whether agreement reached as to part of purchase price deprived LVT of jurisdiction to determine that element of the price – Schedule 9 paragraphs 2 and 4 – application of mandatory leaseback provisions – should the leaseback include provision indemnifying the local authority lessee against unexpected increases in service charge which cannot be recovered from tenants exercising right to buy.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 174 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415036

Drax v Lawn Court Freehold Ltd: UTLC 24 Mar 2010

UTLC Leasehold enfranchisement – costs – initial notices – basis of assessment – costs of proceedings – unreasonable conduct – appeal allowed in part – section 33 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – paragraph 10 Schedule 12 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 81 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415005

Stanhope Castle RTM Co Ltd, Re The Castle: UTLC 8 Feb 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – right to manage – former institution in course of conversion – whether two-thirds of flats owned by qualifying tenants – numbers of flats – whether particular parts of buildings were flats – failure of LVT to address question – appeal allowed – case remitted – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ss 72, 75 and 112(1)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 1 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 72 75 112(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.414997

Grosvenor Estate v Klaasmeyer and Another: UTLC 26 Mar 2010

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9(1A), (1D) and Schedule 1 – enfranchisement by underlessee – unusual terms of head lease – calculation of marriage value – assessment of capitalisation and deferment rates.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 69 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415006

Baystone Investments Ltd v Perkins and Others: UTLC 10 Mar 2010

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – variation of lease – Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 sections 35 and 38 – whether the leases should be varied so as to require landlord to pay the tenants costs of variation – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 70 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415003

Brent London Borough Council v Knightley and Another: CA 26 Feb 1997

The daughter of a deceased tenant claimed succession to her mother’s interest in a tenancy which was subject to a possession order.
Held: There can be no succession to a tolerated trespasser under a former secure tenancy.

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Aldous LJ, sChiemann LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 917, (1997) 29 HLR 857

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – White v Knowsley Housing Trust and Another CA 2-May-2007
The tenant was an assured tenant. She fell into arrears of rent and a possession order was made, but suspended on terms. The court considered whether she continued to be an assured tenant, and could assert a right to buy the property as an assured . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Overruled – Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Southwark SC 23-Jun-2010
The appellant’s brother had been the secure tenant of the respondent Council which had in 1987 obtained an order for possession for rent arrears suspended on condition. The condition had not been complied with, but the brother had continued to live . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.78571

Cadogan v Faizapour and Another: UTLC 14 Jan 2010

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – price payable – comparables – adjustments for condition, location, lateral layout, floor level – whether any planning risk at expiry of leases – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 3 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.414987

Mihovilovic and Another v Leicester City Council: UTLC 28 Jan 2010

Landlord and Tenant – service charges – landlord self-insuring – whether cost could be included in service charge – held it could not – qualifying works – disaggregation – date of agreement – held LVT erred procedurally in considering these – appeal allowed – section 20C order made – case remitted – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ss 20, 27A and 20C – Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 reg 7(5)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 22 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.414988

Chohan v McManus: CA 24 Nov 2008

The appellant had been the landlord’s assured tenant for many years. He sometimes worked away from home, and in 2001 he was absent for six months. On his return the landlord offered an assured shorthold agreement. L now sought to issue a notice under section 21. T said that the earlier tenancy had continued, and the section 21 procedure was not available.
Held: The appeal failed. On the occasion in question T had ceased paying rent whilst absent. The judge had been entitled to take account of this. L had asked T if he proposed to return. There had not been an assured tenancy in existence immediately before the grant of the assured shorthold tenancy.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1657

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408800

HL Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v TJ Graham and Sons Ltd: CA 1957

The landlord asserted that a tenancy should not be renewed and claimed to have held the freehold for more than 5 years.
Held: The Landlord had only become the reversioner to the lease after accepting a surrender of the head lease. The Act referred to the landlord having purchased his interest. That had not happened, and he was entitled to rely upon ground 30(1)(g).
The court considered the nature of a company. Lord Denning LJ said: ‘A company may in many ways be likened to a human body. It has a brain and nerve centre which controls what it does. It also has hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre. Some of the people in the company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more than hands to do the work and cannot be said to represent the mind or will. Others are directors and managers who represent the directing mind and will of the company, and control what it does. The state of mind of these managers is the state of mind of the company and is treated by the law as such. So you will find that in cases where the law requires personal fault as a condition of liability in tort, the fault of the manager will be the personal fault of the company. That is made clear in Lord Haldane’s speech in Lennard’s Carrying Co. Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. So also in the criminal law, in cases where the law requires a guilty mind as a condition of a criminal offence, the guilty mind of the directors or the managers will render the company itself guilty. That is shown by Rex v I.C.R. Haulage Ltd., to which we referred and in which the court said:
‘Whether in any particular case there is evidence to go to a jury that the criminal act of an agent, including his state of mind, intention, knowledge or belief is the act of the company . . must depend on the nature of the charge, the relative position of the officer or agent, and the other relevant facts and circumstances of the case.’
So here, the intention of the company can be derived from the intention of its officers and agents. Whether their intention is the company’s intention depends on the nature of the matter under consideration, the relative position of the officer or agent and the other relevant facts and circumstances of the case.’

Judges:

Denning LJ

Citations:

[1957] 1 QB 159, [1956] 3 All ER 624

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lennard’s Carrying Company Limited v Asiatic Petroleum Company Limited HL 1915
The House was asked as to when the acts of an individual became those of his employer under section 502 (‘any loss or damage happening without (the ship owner’s) actual fault or privity’).
Held: Viscount Haldane LC said: ‘It must be upon the . .

Cited by:

Cited – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006
The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The . .
Cited – Willis v Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth CA 1965
The landlord resisted renewal of the business tenancy saying that he intended to occupy the premises himself. The Court was asked whether the landlord could show the necessary intention under section 30(1)(g) where it intended to occupy the premises . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Company

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.216668

First Tower Trustees Ltd and Another v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd: CA 19 Jun 2018

Grant of lease, but property badly contaminated with asbestos.
The Court recognised a principle of ‘contractual estoppel’ – whereby parties can bind themselves by contract to accept a particular state of affairs even if they know that state of affairs to be untrue

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1396, [2019] 1 P and CR 6, [2019] 1 WLR 637, [2018] WLR(D) 376, 178 Con LR 35

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.618376

Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others: CA 6 Jul 1994

A disclaimer of a lease on insolvency of the tenant leaves the original Tenant and his Security or guarantor liable as well as any intermediate assignees. ‘In order to determine these rights and obligations it is necessary, in the nature of things, that the landlord’s obligations and rights, which are the reverse side of the tenant’s rights and obligations, must also be determined. If the tenant’s liabilities to the landlord are to be extinguished, of necessity so also must be the landlord’s rights against the tenant. The one cannot be achieved without the other. Disclaimer also operates to determine the tenant’s interests in the property, namely the lease. Determination of a leasehold estate has the effect of accelerating the reversion expectant upon the determination of that estate. The leasehold estate ceases to exist.’

Citations:

Ind Summary 18-Jul-1994, Times 06-Jul-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others HL 22-Feb-1996
The guarantor of an original tenant under the lease remains liable after the disclaimer the lease on insolvency. The disclaimer operates to determine the lease altogether with the result that the landlord’s reversion is accelerated. ‘In order to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.81390

Hallisey v Petmoor Developments Ltd: ChD 7 Nov 2000

The landlord had reserved to himself responsibility for repair of the fabric of the building. The top floor included demises of roof gardens, but the same roof gardens necessarily played a considerable part in protecting the tenants from rain and the elements. In the circumstances therefore, the landlord remained responsible for repairs to the roof terrace gardens.

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81178

Havant International Holdings Ltd v Lionsgate (H) Investment Ltd: ChD 8 Dec 1999

Two leases were given in similar terms to similarly named companies. An officer of one company by mistake gave notice to break the leases for each company but using the same name, and also when he was not a director of one of the companies. The notices were effective. The test was not what the landlord actually thought, but what objectively would be thought by a third party. A third party would have seen the mistake.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81280

Hannon v 169 Queen’s Gate Ltd: ChD 23 Nov 1999

A letting scheme created a restriction on new building within the scheme, but was so phrased as to be descriptive not prescriptive, and the landlord was free to subdivide surrendered flats. In the absence of clear words to the contrary the landlord was free to build up above existing buildings. The restriction affected only development on a horizontal plane.
CS Bernard Livesey QC: ‘. . . the courts are reluctant to imply a term where, as here, there is a long and complex legal document drawn up by the lawyers in which the parties have crystallised the terms of their relationship. The conditions that must apply before the courts will imply a term in these circumstances were set out by Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernpoint) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1978) 52 ALJR 20 at p26 and repeated by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Philips Electronique Grand Public SA v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [1995] EMLR 472 at p481 as follows:
for a term to be implied, the following conditions (which may overlap) must be satisfied: (1) it must be reasonable and equitable; (2) it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it; (3) it must be so obvious that ‘it goes without saying’; (4) it must be capable of clear expression; (5) it must not contradict any express term of the contract.
To this, the defendant has suggested that a sixth principle has been added by Hughes v Greenwich London Borough Council [1994] 1 AC 170, that the courts would imply a term into a contract only where there was a compelling reason for doing so, which I accept, although it seems to me that this may simply be another way of looking at Lord Simon’s second condition.’

Judges:

Bernard Livesey QC

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-1999, [2000] 1 EGLR 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81222

Heathrow Airport v Forte (UK) Ltd and Others: ChD 11 Feb 1998

The dominant position held by a Landlord for the provision of space for services and his imposition of a differential charge was insufficient to justify a claim of abuse of position. The provision of catering services to airlines at Heathrow Airport was of a local character necessitated by ‘the need for flexibility and the need for the food to be as fresh as possible’. The defendants had not shown even an arguable case that trade between Member States was affected to an appreciable extent. The trade’s local character was not affected by the fact that three customers were airlines incorporated in other Member States. The expression ‘Euro-defences’ must not be treated as a pejorative term.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins QC

Citations:

Gazette 11-Feb-1998, [1998] EuLR 98

Statutes:

Treaty of Rome 1957 Art 80 Art 90

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, European

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81298

Boyle v Verrall: CA 9 Aug 1996

The Court’s discretion to grant a landlord possession is not limited to exceptional cases. Under Ground 1 in Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 the landlord was entitled to recover possession from an assured tenant if he ‘requires the dwelling house as his…principal home’.

Citations:

Times 09-Aug-1996, [1997] 1 EGLR 25

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 Part I Sch 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.78530

Muir Group Housing Association Ltd v Thornley and Another: CA 25 Nov 1992

The tenant’s right to buy the property held under a secure tenancy was lost when, even after the start of the procedure for purchase, the Tenant had let out the house to another, and so ceased to be a secure tenant.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Nov-1992, (1992) 91 LGR 1, (1993) 25 HLR 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Cited – London Borough of Haringey v Hines CA 20-Oct-2010
The authority sought rescission of a lease granted to the defendant under the right to buy scheme, saying that she had misrepresented her occupation when applying. The tenant replied that no adequate evidence had been brought that she was not a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.84106

Sheffield and Others v Kingsbere Court Management Company Ltd: UTLC 20 Jul 2009

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT -flats -price- agreement before LVT that freehold worth 5.5% more than leasehold value -whether leasehold value relates to real world or no Act world -held real world value applies -appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 137 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373418

London District Properties Management Ltd and Others v Goolamy and Another: Admn 16 Jun 2009

The court was asked: ‘Does section 13(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 have the effect of enabling a landlord to seek to increase the rent payable under a statutory periodic tenancy beyond the levels contemplated in a rent review clause in the assured tenancy that preceded it, even though that clause purports to govern the position during the currency of both the assured tenancy and any subsequent statutory periodic tenancy?’

Judges:

Burnett J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1367 (Admin), [2009] NPC 77, [2009] 2 P and CR DG17, [2010] 1 P and CR 1, [2009] L and TR 25, [2010] 1 WLR 307, [2009] 38 EG 110

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 13(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346924

Salaried Staff London Loan Company Ltd v Swears and Wells Ltd: SCS 15 Feb 1985

Citations:

[1985] ScotCS CSIH – 2, 1985 SLT 326, 1985 SC 189

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Distinguished – Attica Sea Carriers Corporation v Ferrostaal Poseidon Bulk Reederei GmbH, The Puerto Buitrago CA 1976
The parties entered into a charterparty by demise of a bulk carrier. It was in a state of disrepair. The owners required the charterers to repair it before redelivery, and claimed hire losses until it was returned repaired. The extensive repairs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279529

Sheffield City Council and Another v Oliver: LT 18 Aug 2008

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – landlord’s covenant to repair structure and exterior of premises – whether external windows part of structure and exterior – held that they were – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s27A; Housing Act 1985 Sch 6 para 14(2).

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 146 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278618

Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc: ChD 12 Mar 2007

His lease had expired, but the defendant continued in occupation under a licence. The parties agreed for new leases on terms fixed, but conditional on the lease being allowed to be contracted out. The tenant now asserted that it occupied the property with security under the 1954 Act.
Held: However unattractive the point made by the defendant, the court had to look to its validity in law. The licence and intended lease were not severable. If the intended lease became impossible that did not leaveth elicence to become a lease: ‘if the licence did not fall to be treated as a stand-alone document, then the vendor/purchaser exception to the prima facie Street v. Mountford position would obtain. He is right to accept that. I have come to the conclusion that this is plainly a case of a licence being granted in the context of the acquisition of the larger interest and, as such, the nature of the interest granted by Cameron and obtained by Rolls-Royce under the agreement itself and pending the grant of the lease is that of a licence only.’

Judges:

MannJ

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 546 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Joseph v Joseph CA 1967
The words in section 38(1) ‘purports to’ means ‘has the effect that’ so that an agreement to give up possession in two years when the lease would still have six years to run infringed section 38 as it would preclude an application or request for a . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – National Car Parks Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Trinity Development Company (Banbury) Ltd CA 18-Oct-2001
The land owner appealed a decision that the claimant was a tenant of its premises. It had granted what was described as a licence to the claimant, but stated explicitly that the claimant’s servants should not in any way impeach the land-owner’s . .
Cited – Essex Plan Ltd v Broadminster ChD 1988
The defendant with the benefit of an option to take a lease was allowed into the premises pursuant to what was described as, and purported to be, a licence. He then claimed a tenancy.
Held: The agreement was indeed a licence. Referring to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.261894

Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss: CA 1982

When considering whether to give consent to an assignment of a lease, the landlord need consider only his own interests.
Slade LJ said: ‘I find it rather more surprising that, when the landlords came subsequently to question the validity of the assignment in such circumstances, they should be free to rely on reasons for their refusal which had not been mentioned to the tenant, or even hinted at, either before or in the letter of 16 September 1980 which contained the outright refusal. In the absence of authority, I would have thought there was much to be said for the view that a landlord who, by stating to the tenant one reason only for refusing his consent to an assignment, that reason being a demonstrably bad one, provokes a tenant into assigning without consent, should not thereafter be allowed to rely on unstated reasons for the purpose of attacking the validity of the assignment. However, authorities . . appear to establish that the court, in considering questions of reasonableness or otherwise in this context, is not confined to the reasons expressly put forward by the landlord prior to the date of the refusal.’
Dunn LJ referred to the case law and said: ‘In both cases the withholding of consent to the assignments by the landlords were held not to have been unreasonable. In both cases the landlords were seeking to uphold the status quo and to preserve the existing contractual arrangements provided by the leases. In both cases, the landlords reasonably believed that they would suffer detriment if the assignments were made. It is true that in deciding the question of unreasonableness the courts did not confine themselves to narrow considerations as to the personality of the proposed assignee or the subject matter of the lease, as had been done in some of the older cases, and it may be that the passage in Woodfall was intended to draw attention to that, but there is nothing in the cases to indicate that a landlord is entitled to refuse his consent in order to acquire a commercial benefit for himself by putting into effect proposals outside the contemplation of the lease under consideration, and to replace the contractual relations created by the lease by some alternative arrangements more advantageous to the landlord, even though this would be in accordance with good estate management.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Dunn LJ

Citations:

[1982] 2 All ER 890, [1982] 1 WLR 1019

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – West Layton Ltd v Ford; West Layton Ltd v Joseph and Another CA 12-Feb-1979
When considering whether to consent to an assignment of a lease, a landlord need consider only his own interests. . .

Cited by:

Cited – International Drilling Fluids v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd CA 20-Nov-1985
Consent to Assignment Unreasonably Withheld
The landlord had refused a proposed assignment of office premises from a tenant who had occupied the premises as its permanent offices, to a tenant who proposed to use the premises as serviced offices – that is, for short-term rent to others. The . .
Cited – Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd ChD 1-Apr-1998
The plaintiff was tenant of premises under a lease granted by the defendant’s predecessor in title. He vacated the premises in July 1996, and on 17 November 1997 wrote asking the defendant for a licence to sublet them to a pet shop business. The . .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 1999
Shopmoor’s predecessors demised premises for 150 years at a yearly rent of andpound;100 on payment of a premium. A covenant provided that the tenant was not to assign or sublet without the landlord’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or . .
Cited – Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and Another CA 31-Jan-2003
The tenant applied for a licence to assign the lease under section 1. The landlord refused consent, but the parties continued to negotiate. The tenant argued that the landlord’s continuation of negotiations showed the earlier counter-notice to have . .
Cited – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD 16-Jul-2004
The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting.
Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and . .
Considered – Orlando Investments v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia 1989
The lease contained a tenant’s covenant to repair, and not to assign without the landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. T, himself an assignee, and therefore not liable on the covenant after assignment, sought consent from . .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 10-Apr-1997
The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
Held: The 1988 Act . .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD 10-Apr-1997
The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
Held: The 1988 Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.199281

Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd: TCC 31 Jul 2008

The court considered liability under a repairing covenant at the termination of a lease.

Judges:

Toulmin CMG QC J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2003 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd CA 27-Jun-2007
Enforcement of repairing obligations in lease after assignments, and the use of collateral contracts. Sir Andrew Morritt C said: ‘The law relating to collateral contracts is well-established but in connection with sales or leases of land needs to be . .

Cited by:

See Also – Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd ChD 31-Jul-2009
The court was asked ‘Where a claimant has picked up one or more costs orders in its favour on the way to a trial, but fails very badly at the trial (for example due to exaggeration), can the costs judge assess those costs at nil on the footing that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272796

In Re Lee (A Bankrupt): ChD 24 Feb 1998

An order vesting a lease disclaimed by the trustee in bankruptcy, in a mortgagee, may provide that any profit which is made on a re-sale of the lease was to be paid on to the receiver for the benefit of creditors.

Citations:

Times 24-Feb-1998, Gazette 08-Apr-1998

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 320

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – In Re Lee (A Bankrupt) CA 22-Aug-1999
The court has sufficient discretion to order that the surplus proceeds of sale of a leasehold interest could be paid to the liquidator despite his having himself disclaimed any interest in the lease. Nobody else had claimed an interest, and the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In Re Lee (A Bankrupt) CA 22-Aug-1999
The court has sufficient discretion to order that the surplus proceeds of sale of a leasehold interest could be paid to the liquidator despite his having himself disclaimed any interest in the lease. Nobody else had claimed an interest, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.82001

In Re Lomax Leisure Ltd: ChD 4 May 1999

A landlord may exercise a right of peaceable re-entry without court action after his tenant company went into administration. It was not the enforcement of a security so as to be restricted by insolvency legislation.

Citations:

Times 04-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 10(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.82007

Crossco No 4 Unltd and Others v Jolan Ltd and Others: ChD 31 Mar 2011

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 803 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Crossco No4 Unltd and Others v Jolan Ltd and Others CA 21-Dec-2011
The common intention constructive trust expounded in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott (and similar cases) does not apply in a commercial context. . .
Cited – FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.431616

Goldeagle Properties Ltd v Thornbury Court Ltd: CA 25 Jul 2008

The landlord of a block of apartments appealed against an order requiring him to transfer his interest under the Act to the respondent company owned by the tenants.

Judges:

Tuckey, Carnwath, Jacob LjJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 864

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271101

Bhambhani v Willowcourt Managment Co (1985) Ltd: LT 14 Apr 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – construction of lease – estoppel – whether tenant estopped from denying that increased quarterly payments on account of service charges were due despite not having been increased in the manner provided for by the lease – whether estoppel being used as a sword not a shield.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 22 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270490

Cadogan Estates Ltd v Panagopoulos and Another: LT 24 Jun 2008

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – price – comparables -value of freehold – potential for conversion to a single house or one large maisonette with separate basement flat – market demand – planning – appeal dismissed – price confirmed at andpound;3,756,634.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRA – 97 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270499

Daejan Investments Ltd v The Holt (Freehold) Ltd: LT 2 May 2008

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Development Act 1993 – whether appeal to take effect by way of rehearing or only by way of review – whether the price to be paid for certain property falling within section 1(2) remained in dispute for the purposes of section 24(1) – deferment rate in the light of Cadogan v Sportelli.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRA – 133 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270495

Witnesham Ventures Ltd v Markwick and others: LT 24 Apr 2008

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 27A -LVT’s decision lacking findings of fact or adequate reasons – Lands Tribunal deciding the dispute was not capable of just determination by Lands Tribunal on the papers on an appeal by way of review- in the light of that decision, parties consenting to remittal of case for rehearing of the relevant parts thereof by a differently constituted LVT.

Citations:

[2008] EWLands LRX – 19 – 2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270491