Tag: Landlord and Tenant

Cawsand Fort Management Company Ltd v Stafford and others: CA 20 Nov 2007

The tenant had sought an order under the 1987 Act for the appointment of a manager of the apartments. The landlord appealed against the order saying that it could not apply to buildings which were not comprised in the buildings containing the leasehold flats and their curtilages.
Held: The appeal failed. The Act ‘requires a causal link or nexus between the functions to be carried out by the manager and the premises defined in section 21(1), but it does not confine the manager’s functions to buildings and their curtilages. The power of the LVT is broader than simply appointing a manager of or over the premises as a building or part of a building.’

Judges:

Mummery, Richards LJJ, Sir Paul Kennedy

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1187

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taylor v Blaquiere CA 14-Nov-2002
The court had appointed a manager of the converted house under the Act. The tenants sought to set off against the sums payable under the lease, the costs of repairs. The manager asserted that whilst he owed some duty of care, it was not a full duty . .
Cited – Adcock v Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd CA 26-Apr-2000
The claimant claimed under his fire insurance with the defendants. He sought damages for their delay in processing the claim.
Held: The power to award interest on damages is discretionary. The judge had refused to allow interest, at a rate . .
At Lands Tribunal – Cawsand Ford Management Co Ltd v Stafford and others LT 7-Nov-2006
LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – appointment of manager – lessees with incorporeal rights over land outside the curtilage of the building – held power to include such land in management order – Landlord and Tenant Act . .
Leave – Cawsand Fort Management Co Ltd v Stafford and others CA 21-Feb-2007
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261450

London Rent Assessment Panel v Holding and Management (Solitaire) Ltd: LT 26 Oct 2007

LT LANDLORD AND TENANT – right to manage – whether part of a building a vertical division of the building – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s 72.

Citations:

[2007] EWLands LRX – 138 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 72

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260325

Estates Governors of Alleyn’s College v Williams: ChD 14 Jan 1994

A scheme had been approved by the court under the Act, conferring management powers on managers. They were to consider applications for permission to construct new buildings, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
Held: It was for the freeholder managers to show that his refusal of consent for a development is unreasonable. If the householder and managers found themselves in disagreement, it was for the court to stand in the manager’s shoes only for the narrow purpose of seeing whether, acting reasonably, their decision was one they could reasonably have reached.

Judges:

Sir Donald Nicholls VC

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-1994

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pimms Ltd v Tallow Chandlers Company CA 1964
The landlord had refused its consent to an assignment of the remaining term of a lease to a development company, which desired to acquire the lease because of its nuisance value, and to use its interest as a basis for inducing the landlord to enter . .
Cited – Shanly v Ward CA 1913
A tenant challenged his landlord’s refusal of consent to an assignment.
Held: The refusal was reasonable. The onus of proving that consent has been unreasonably withheld is on the tenant. It was not enough to show that other lessors might have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.80376

Andrews and Another v Cunningham: CA 23 Jul 2007

The elderly appellant claimed a non-shorthold assured tenancy. He had moved in in 1999, but had been given a rent book which described the tenancy as an assured tenancy. The now deceased landlord had himself occupied another flat in the building.
Held: Whilst the landlord occupied the house, the tenancy could only be a common law tenancy subject to one month’s notice. The rentbook describing the tenancy as an assured tenancy did not prevent it also being an assured shorthold tenancy. The tenancy had become an assured shorthold tenancy on conversion, and the tenant’s appeal failed.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Wilson LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 762

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – McDonald and Another v Fernandez and Another CA 19-Jul-2003
The landlord served a notice to terminate a shorthold tenancy saying that he required possession on a certain day. The tenancy had been a periodic tenancy, and the date was not the last day of a period of the tenancy.
Held: The Act was . .
Cited – Speedwell Estates Limited and Covent Garden Group Limited v Jane Rush Dalziel and others CA 31-Jul-2001
Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not . .
Cited – Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258297

RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd and Another: ChD 13 Jul 2007

The court was asked whether the grant of a lease including a clause reserving: ‘All rights to the access of light or air from the said adjoining property known as Victoria House and Graham House to any of the windows of the demised property.’ allowed the tenant to claim a right of light over neighbouring land belonging to the landlord so as to prevent development. The lease also reserved to the landlord: ‘The full and free right to erect, build, re-build and or alter as they think fit at any time and from time to time any buildings or bays or projections to buildings on any land adjoining the demised property and/or on the opposite sides of the adjoining streets and access ways.’
Lewison J said: ‘The real distinction that the cases draw is, as it seems to me, between clauses that deal with the position as it exists at the date of the lease, and clauses that deal with what might happen in the future. Clauses of the first kind are effective only to prevent the creation of easements by express or implied grant; and do not prevent the subsequent acquisition of a right of light by prescription. Clauses of the second kind may prevent the acquisition of a right of light by prescription of what they authorise would interfere with light. If, on a fair reading of the clause they do, then it is not necessary, in my judgment, for the clause to use the word ‘light’. Nor, in my judgement, is it necessary for the clause to provide that the enjoyment of light is ‘permissive’. What is needed is that the clause makes it clear that the enjoyment of light is not absolute and indefeasible. The court must ‘find out the substance of the contract’: in other words it is a question of interpretation of the clause in question. Once the clause has been interpreted, that interpretation will have been ‘expressly’ agreed. A clause in a lease which authorises the landlord to build as he pleases is likely to satisfy the test.’

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1655 (Ch), [2007] NPC 90, [2008] L and TR 7, [2007] 4 All ER 744, [2007] 29 EG 143, [2007] 44 EG 182, [2007] 3 EGLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marlborough (West End) Ltd v Wilks Head and Eve ChD 20-Dec-1996
A dispute between neighbours was settled by a deed with the following clause: ‘IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED that notwithstanding that the Building Owners have placed windows in that part of their new buildings which overlook the premises . .
Cited – Mitchell v Cantrill CA 1887
In 1864 Sir Humphrey de Trafford granted a 999 year lease of a dwelling house ‘with all rights and appurtenances, legal, used, or reputed, to the said plot of land, except rights, if any, restricting the free use of any adjoining land or the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2008
A right to light is an unusual form of easement in the sense that it exists only with regard to the access to light to defined apertures in a building (as opposed to the dominant land generally) and its acquisition depends on actual enjoyment, not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258163

Mayor etc of Congleton v Pattison and Another: KBD 1 Jul 1808

The plaintiffs granted a lease of land subject to a covenant to give notice of those who worked in the silk mills to be erected and to pay fees for workers employed to cover the town’s responsibilities to inhabitants brought into the town. They now sought payment from the defendants, who were successors in title, and who had not given notice or made payments as required. The defendants argued that they were not liable since it was only a collateral covenant and did not run with the land.
Held: The claim failed: ‘This is a covenant in which the assignee is specifically named; and though it were for a thing not in case at the time, yet being specifically named, it would bind him, if it affected the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised, independently of collateral circumstances; or if it affected the mode of enjoying it. But this covenant does not affect the thing demised, in the one way or the other. It may indeed collaterally affect the lessors as to other lands they may have in possession in the same parish, by increasing the poor’s rate upon them; but it cannot affect them even collaterally in respect of the demised premises during the term. How then can it affect the nature, quality, or value of the thing demised? Can it make any difference to the mills, whether they are worked by persons of one parish or another: or can it affect the value of the thing at the end of the term, independently of collateral circumstances? ‘

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough CJ, Le Blanc J

Citations:

[1808] EWHC KB J66

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248376

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.
Held: The damage to the reversion should have been inferred from the estimated cost of repairing the roof and in addition from the estimated costs of remedying the other breaches found by the judge. Section 18(1) also applied to limit the damages to be awarded for breach the decorating covenant during the term of the lease. A subsequent tenant had himself intended to carry out alterations which would limit the effect of the non-repair. The effect of section 18 is, in any case where its application is in issue between the parties, to require the court to find the amount of the damage to the value of the reversion of the premises caused by the failure to repair. To do this the court has to find the difference between the value of the premises in disrepair on the open market and the value that the premises would have had if there had been no breach of the covenant to repair. It need not do more than find that this difference was at least as great as the amount claimed against the tenant. Though the landlords had failed to provide proper evidence, the effect of the judge’s ruling was to deprive them of their damages, and this invited a closer inspection by the court. It was axiomatic that the defects as found including the repair needed to the roof and the decoration, were likely to affect the value of the premises to a purchaser. A purchaser was likely to want to let the premises or use them himself. There was no suggestion that they were to be pulled down or rebuilt. The correct assessement was for the judge to have inferred diminution in value to the reversion from the estimated costs of any repairs required to be done by the outgoing tenant which the landlord could actually show they had done, applying a discount as necessary.

Judges:

Arden LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1417

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Joyner v Weeks 1891
The general rule at common law is that the measure of damages for breach of the covenant to repair by a tenant is the cost of putting the premises into the state of repair required by the covenant. . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Hanson v Newman 1934
The basic measure of damages for breach of the covenant to repair is the reasonable costs of executing the repairs required to fulfil the covenant . . .
Cited – Jones v Herxheimer CA 1950
The landlord let the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor to the tenant for one year. The tenant covenanted to keep and deliver up the premises in good and tenantable repair, but was in breach. The landlord redocorated the rooms and relet . .
Cited – Culworth Estates Ltd v Society of Licensed Victuallers 1991
When considering how to measure the landlord’s loss after a breach of the tenant’s covenant to repair, the court may look to any reduced price recovered by the landlord on a sale after the end of the lease. . .
Cited – Gorne v Scales and others CA 29-Mar-2006
Although the damages to be awarded at the end of a lease for the tenant’s breach of his covenant to repair are to be assessed at the time when the lease comes to an end, subsequent events can be taken into account if they relate to the bases of . .
Cited – Firle Investments Ltd v Datapoint International Ltd TCC 8-May-2000
The landlord sought damages for the breach by the tenant of his covenant to repair, and claimed inter alia the estimated costs of repair as set out in a schedule of dilapidations. The tenant claimed there was no damage because the real value of the . .
Cited – Shortland Investments Ltd v Cargill plc 1995
The fact that a subsequent tenant was given a rent free period or was paid a reverse premium to take the premises, could allow a court to infer the extent of damage to the landlord’s reversion caused by the first tenant’s breach of his covenant to . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Craven Builders Ltd v Secretary of State for Health 2000
The court considered the measure of damages for a tenant’s failure to comply with his covenant to repair where the premises did have redevelopment potential but a purchaser would still pay more if the premises were in a good state of repair.
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Haviland v Long CA 1952
The landlord had a right to recover damages from a tenant for breach of an obligation to keep and leave the premises in repair. The landlord entered into a fresh lease with a new tenant who paid the full economic rent and agreed to carry out the . .
Cited – Gemmell v Goldsworthy 1942
A covenant in a lease for periodic decoration is not a covenant to repair because it will have to be performed even if the property is not in poor decorative repair. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245669

Caerns Motor Services Ltd v Texaco Ltd and Another: ChD 22 Mar 1994

The court heard actions relating to the effectiveness of a solus petrol tie applied to two petrol station leases after the assignment of the freehold reversion.
Held: They remained enforceable. The ovenants were not eforceable. The term Landlord included its assignees.

Judges:

Paul Baker QC HHJ

Citations:

[1994] EWHC Ch 2, [1994] 36 EG 141, [1994] 1 WLR 1249, [1995] 1 All ER 247

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245434

Bent v High Cliff Developments Ltd and Another: ChD 2 Sep 1999

The replacement by a tenant of windows in a flat did not amount to structural alterations. The lease was clear as to what could constitute such alterations, and despite the different uses of the term in the lease, it clearly did not include either windows or doors.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

considered – Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School CA 14-Jul-1978
The court considered the finality of decision of a county court judge regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘structural alteration’ in the 1974 Act. Paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 8 provided that the determination of the county court judge ‘shall . .
considered – Irvine v Moran 1991
The tenant took a lease for under 7 years, accepting repairing and other obligations. The question was how those obligations fitted the landlord’s implied obligations under section 32, and the effect of the section on decorating covenants. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78342

Burrows v Brent London Borough Council: HL 31 Oct 1996

The authority had obtained a possession order from its secure tenant but then agreed to accept payments toward the arrears. The tenant applied for and was granted a declaration that she had on that agreement acquired a new tenancy. The authority appealed.
Held: The agreement had created a new tenancy even after a final possession order had been made, and a A new possession order was required before any warrant could be issued. Had the authority obtained a suspended possession order, no new tenancy might have been created. While a tenant could not sue for breach of a landlord’s covenant while the tenancy was in the state of limbo, if and when the secure tenancy revived, its covenants likewise revived and were to be treated as having been in existence during the limbo period.
An agreement which allowed a tenant to stay on in a house after a possession order had been made, did not itself create a new tenancy, but he might have the status of being a ‘tolerated trespasser’: ‘In the absence of special circumstances, an agreement by a landlord not to enforce strictly an order for possession, whether conditional or unconditional does not create a new secure tenancy or licence.’ However, a tenant who had not been evicted could apply under section 85(2) to postpone the date of possession, and, upon such postponement, the secure tenancy would be revived because ‘the date on which the tenant is to give up possession’ would not have arisen and thus the tenancy would not have ended. Until a possession order was executed, the court could by variation of its order change the date on which possession is to be given and thereby revive a secure tenancy which had already been terminated.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘What, then, is the correct legal analysis? I start from the proposition that where a former tenant is by agreement allowed to remain in possession of the demised property after the termination of the tenancy, the question in each case is quo animo the parties have so acted: depending upon the circumstances, their conduct may give rise to a new tenancy, a licence or some other arrangement. In the present case, on 5 February 1992 the parties plainly did not intend to create a new tenancy or licence but only to defer the execution of the order so long as Miss Burrows complied with the agreed conditions. It cannot be right to impute to the parties an intention to create a legal relationship such as a secure tenancy or licence unless the legal structures within which they made their agreement force that conclusion.
A secure tenancy protected by Part IV of the Act of 1985 is not like an ordinary tenancy. It can only be terminated by an order of the court ordering possession to be given on a particular date or in a particular event. But even determination by order of the court is not final. Until the possession order is executed, the court can by variation of its order change the date on which possession is to be given and thereby revive a secure tenancy which has already been terminated. During the period between the date specified by the order for the giving of possession and the date on which the order is executed there is a period of limbo: the old tenancy has gone but may yet be revived by a further order of the court varying the date for possession. If the parties reach an agreement as to the continued occupation of the premises by the tenant during that limbo period, what intention is to be imputed to them?
In my judgment little guidance is to be obtained from the cases where a tenant holds over after the termination of an ordinary tenancy where there is no possibility that the expired tenancy can revive. The position in relation to secure tenancies is sui generis. In my judgment, the agreement can and should take effect in the way the parties intend, i.e. it is an agreement by the landlords that, upon the tenant complying with the agreed conditions, the landlords will forbear from executing the order, i.e. from taking the step which would finally put an end to the tenant’s right to apply to the court for an order reviving the tenancy. There is no need to impute to the parties an intention to create a new tenancy or licence: the retention of possession and the payment of rent relate to occupation under the old tenancy which is in limbo but which may be revived. In these circumstances I think it is fair to characterise the former tenant as a trespasser whom the landlord has agreed not to evict – a ‘tolerated trespasser’ – pending either the revival of the old tenancy or the breach of the agreed conditions.
Once the effect of section 85 is appreciated, the absurdities which led the Court of Appeal not to accept that Miss Burrows could be a tolerated trespasser disappear. Technically the old secure tenancy is, during the limbo period, no longer in existence and therefore neither the repairing covenants in the tenancy nor the Defective Premises Act 1972 apply. But the tenant can at any time apply to the court for an order varying the date on which possession is to be given and thereby retrospectively revive the old secure tenancy, together with its covenants. If the tenant has complied with the agreed conditions, there can be little doubt that the court would make the required order. Moreover, the tenant will not be a homeless person within section 58(2) of the Act of 1985 because the tenant will be occupying the residence by virtue of any ‘rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation:’ see section 58(2)(c). If the tenant were in breach of any of the covenants in the old secure tenancy, Brent could apply to vary the order so as retrospectively to revive the old tenancy together with its covenants.
Finally, there is a method (albeit a clumsy one) whereby the order for possession even if an immediate unconditional order, can be discharged or rescinded if so desired under section 85(4). The power in that subsection to discharge or rescind only arises ‘if the conditions are complied with,’ a requirement which cannot be satisfied in the case of an unconditional order. But there is no reason why the order cannot be discharged by consent or, if such consent is not forthcoming, by the court varying the original order so as to impose the agreed conditions and then discharging the varied order.
It was submitted that the fact that the tenancy was granted to Miss Burrows jointly with Mr. Allen whereas the agreement of 5 February 1992 was made with Miss Burrows alone, indicated that the agreement must have given rise to a new tenancy with Miss Burrows alone. Therefore there must be a new tenancy. However, since in my view on its proper analysis the arrangement contained in the agreement of 5 February 1992 gave rise to no new tenancy with anyone, that factor is irrelevant. I therefore reach the conclusion that, in the absence of special circumstances, an agreement by a landlord not to enforce strictly an order for possession, whether conditional or unconditional, does not create a new secure tenancy or licence under Part IV of Act of 1985.
As Brent, by making the agreement of 5 February 1992, did not grant a new tenancy or licence to Miss Burrows as from 12 February 1992. It follows that the possession order of 29 January 1992 was properly enforced. I would therefore reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial judge and dismiss Miss Burrows’s action.’
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘whereas an order postponing the date of possession necessarily affects the operation of section 82(2), an order staying or suspending the execution of an order for possession on a stated date has no effect on the operation of that subsection but merely postpones execution so long as the conditions of suspension are complied with.’

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson L

Citations:

Gazette 20-Nov-1996, Times 04-Nov-1996, [1996] 4 All ER 577, [1997] 1 EGLR 32, [1997] 2 FCR 43, [1996] NPC 149, [1997] Fam Law 246, [1996] UKHL 20, (1997) 29 HLR 167, [1997] 11 EG 150, [1997] 1 FLR 178

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 82 85(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan CA 31-Jan-1996
The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought . .
Cited – Cannan v Hartley 1850
. .
Cited – Gray v Bompas 1862
. .
Cited – Oastler v Henderson 1877
The tenancy was for seven years. Shortly after its creation, the tenant left the keys with the agent and asked him to dispose of it or make the best bargain for surrender he could, and left for America. A tenant not being found, the agent returned . .
Appeal from – Burrows v Brent London Borough Council CA 21-Jul-1995
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Swindon Borough Council v Aston CA 19-Dec-2002
The tenant had fallen into arrears, and a possession order had been made. Having cleared the arrears, the possession order fell, but the landlord purported to issue a new tenancy agreement, with no security of tenure. They now sought possession . .
Distinguished – Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan CA 31-Jan-1996
The authority had taken possession proceedings against the secure tenant for non-payment of rent, and obtained an order, suspended on condition as to payments. He again fell into arrears, and the authority made a further agreement. They now sought . .
Cited – London Borough of Newham v Hawkins and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The landlord had obtained a possession order, but the tenant continued in occupation as a tolerated trespasser, claiming entitlement as successors in title. Rent arrears had accrued, but even if the tenant had paid thenm the council would have . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth and Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA 28-Jul-2005
In each case the authority had obtained an order for possession of the tenanted properties, but the court had suspended the possession orders. The tenants had therefore now become ‘tolerated trespassers’. They now claimed that they had again become . .
Cited – Richmond v Kensington and Chelsea CA 15-Feb-2006
The borough obtained a possession order of the secure tenancy of a flat occupied by their tenant for nuisance. It was suspended on terms for a certain period. They alleged further breaches shortly before the expiry of the possession order and they . .
Cited – Harlow District Council v Hall CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had been subject to a possession order in respect of his secure tenancy. He was later adjudged bankrupt. He asserted that the bankruptcy specifically prevented other action to enforce the debt, and the suspended possession order was . .
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 – Austin v Southwark London Borough Council (355) QBD 29-Jan-2008
. .
Cited – Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington CA 22-Apr-2008
The claimant was a council tenant with the right to buy her property. A possession order was made, but then discharged.
Held: On the revival of the tenancy her right to buy and discount was also revived, and there was no need to serve a fresh . .
Cited – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
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 – 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: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78761

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Wang and others: LT 7 Jul 2006

LANDLORD AND TENANT – services charges – Section27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as introduced by Section 155 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which came into force on 30 September 2003 – the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (Commencement No. 2 and Savings) England) Order 2003 – whether on an application made to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal after 30 September 2003 the provisions of Section 27A(2) and (5) apply so as to enable LVT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 27A notwithstanding that the service charges claimed by the landlord were paid by the tenant before commencement date – Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights – abuse of process.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRX – 89 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243176

Richmond Housing Partnership v Smith and Another: LT 23 Jan 2006

LT Service Charges – Procedure – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.20(4) – Failure to serve copy of estimates – fees part of cost of qualifying work but not required to be included in estimate.

Citations:

[2006] EWLands LRX – 10 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20(4)

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238407

Segal Securities Limited v Thoseby: QBD 1963

To demand rent may waive a right to forfeiture. Sachs J said: ‘When one looks at the authorities, it is, however, clear that a demand can operate as a waiver in the same way as an acceptance.’ Also the landlord’s own behaviour can be taken into account when deciding whether to grant relief against forfeiture.
A waiver occurs even where the demand or acceptance of rent was made without prejudice or under protest that it was not to be construed as a waiver.
Accepting rent can be a waiver of the right to terminate even if the landlord purports to accept the rent, ‘without prejudice’. Sachs J said: ”As both demand and acceptance respectively are in law merely different forms of a notification by a landlord of election not to avoid or forfeit the Lease, to my mind no distinction can nowadays be drawn between them in relation to a question whether the label ‘Without Prejudice’ affects their quality as an election.
There is no reason of principle why a right of forfeiture arising from a failure to pay rent, cannot be waived in exactly the same way as a right of forfeiture arising from a breach of any other covenant in the Lease. In London and County (AandD) Ltd v Wilfred Sportsman Ltd [1971] 1 Ch 764, at 786 Russell LJ (with whom Lord Donovan and Megaw LJ agreed) said:
‘The other argument put forward was that there can never be waiver of forfeiture for non-payment of rent by recognition of the continued existence of the Lease because, as has often been said, a right of re-entry for non-payment of rent is a mere security for the payment. I am not aware of any authority for this proposition, and I see no justification in principle for making this distinction between a default in an obligation to pay rent and any other obligation. Of course, rent may be demanded after the forfeiture days are passed, and, indeed, part payment accepted on account without waiving the forfeiture; this does not recognise the continued existence of the Lease beyond the date when that rent was payable. I refer in this connection also to the passage in Shepherd v Berger [1892] 1 QB 597, 599, which appears to me inconsistent with the proposition advanced.”

Judges:

Sachs J

Citations:

[1963] 1 QB 887, [1963] 1 All ER 500

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Expert Clothing Service and Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd CA 1985
Landlords took possession after a successful, at first instance, forfeiture claim. The tenant succeeded on appeal and then brought a claim for the wrong of breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
Held: The lease had been in existence all . .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar (No 2) CA 20-Jun-1972
Right to forfeit waived by rent demand
The landlords’ managing agents learned that the tenant had been convicted of keeping a brothel at the premises and served a section 146 notice intending to forfeit the tenancy. He told his staff and instructed them not to demand or accept rent. But . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230299

Martinvale Developments Ltd, Re: 119 Berryfield Road: LT 30 Jun 2005

LT SERVICE CHARGES – administration charge – payment in respect of breach of covenant – whether charge made not payable by reason of failure of landlord to accompany demand with summary of tenant’s rights – whether admission by tenant that charge payable – whether admission as to amount – reasonableness of amount – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11

Citations:

[2004] UKLANDS LRX – 90 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228969

Rigby v Wheatley: LT 30 Jun 2005

LT SERVICE CHARGE – insurance rent – fair proportion of cost of insurance payable by tenant – fair proportion to be determined by the landlord’s surveyor – demands issued at figures not determined by landlord’s surveyor held to be invalid and not payable – appeal allowed – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ss18(1) and 27A

Citations:

[2005] EWLands LRX – 84 – 2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228970

A Property Company v HM Inspector of Taxes: SCIT 5 Oct 2004

SCIT SCHEDULE A – income from land – whether agreements for lease gave rise to an immediate right to rent or whether the right was conditional on obtaining the landlord’s consent to subletting – whether the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 enables retention of a future rent payment on a sale of the reversion – no – whether the definition of the retained rent payment is void for uncertainty – no – whether contractual right to such rent is within Schedule A – no
CASE VI OF SCHEDULE D – profits – as to the rent payable under agreements entered into before the 1995 Act, it is not taxable under Case VI because the only possible head of charge is Schedule A which does not apply because the source has ceased – as to the rent caught by the 1995 Act which passed automatically to the purchaser, the sum equal to the rent purported to be retained on sale that the purchaser was liable to pay to give business effect to the agreement is taxable under Case VI

Citations:

[2004] UK SPC00433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley (London) Ltd and Others ChD 4-Apr-2007
Land at Wembley stadium had been sold to the defendants and leased back. The defendant assigned the freehold within the group, declaring that the lease was held in trust for the original freeholder. The claimant now said that the defendant assignee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228783

KPMG Llp v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: ChD 31 Jan 2006

Judges:

Blackburne J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 67 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson HL 30-Jun-2005
The Society had taken possession of a property in 1989. It located the defendants many years later and sought payment of the excess after deduction of the proceeds of sale, and for interest. The borrowers claimed the debt was expired by limitation . .
Cited – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited v New Hampshire Insurance Company Independent Insurance Company Limited Axa Reinsurance S A CA 21-May-2001
A claim was made under a re-insurance policy which supported film finances. The re-insurers resisted the claim on the grounds of misrepresentation. Rix LJ: ‘In principle it would seem to me that it is always admissible to look at prior contracts as . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – KPMG Llp v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The parties disputed the interpretation of a break clause in their lease. Carnwath LJ said that courts should not readily accept that parties have made mistakes in formal documents: ‘correction of mistakes by construction’ is not a separate branch . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.238346

O’Brien v Glentamer Mansions Management Co Ltd: LT 8 Mar 2004

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – claim by former landlord for compensation for loss resulting from collective enfranchisement – price determined by County Court upheld by Court of Appeal – Leasehold Valuation Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction – appeal dismissed – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Schedule 6, paragraph 5.

Citations:

[2004] EWLands LRA – 58 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225795

Gesso Properties (BVI) Ltd v SCMLLA Ltd: LT 30 Mar 2004

LT Hope value was not established by the landlord on the evidence.

Citations:

[2004] EWLands LRA – 13 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Earl Cadogan v Pitts and Wang; Similar HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered the basis of valuation on an acquisition of the freehold reversion of a lease under the 1967 Act of the three elements, the rent, vacant possession after the lease, and the marriage or hope value of the two interests when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225794

Thiery v John Lyon’s Charity: LT 16 Jul 2003

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – premium payable for grant of new lease of flat – marriage value – market value of existing lease agreed – whether value affected by provisions of Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2003] EWLands LRA – 44 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225757

S F Holdings Inc (A Company) v Eyre Estate Trustees: LT 9 Jun 2003

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – price payable for freehold of house – unimproved value – comparable sale – market movement between valuation date of subject property and sale of comparable – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2003] EWLands LRA – 33 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225747

John Lyon’s Charity v Shalson: LT 26 Mar 2001

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – price payable for freehold of house – appropriate capitalisation and deferment rates – reliability of settlement evidence – whether transfer should include absolute prohibition on use other than as single private residence – whether improvements to be disregarded include conversion from flats to single dwellinghouse – if so, values of unimproved freehold and leasehold interests – appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 54 – 1999

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225641

Caplin and Another v Bridge and Another: LT 22 Feb 2001

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Price payable for acquisition of freehold – value attributable freeholder’s opportunity to receive insurance commissions – Leasehold Reform Act 1967 section 9 – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 53 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225634

Earl Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd v Cecil: LT 12 Feb 2001

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – premium payable for the grant of new lease of flat – value of extended lease – comparables to be taken into account – relationship between existing leasehold and freehold values – whether evidence on relativities relevant – appeal allowed – premium andpound;356,456

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 10 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225635

Langinger v Earl of Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd: LT 16 Oct 2001

LT Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, 1993 Schedule 13 – Valuation of Leases disregarding rights – Evidence of settlements – Marginal variation from LVT’s valuation – Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 46 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225683

Abacona Investements Ltd v Wright and others (Executors of Will of Eileen Elizabeth Yardley Deceased): LT 22 Feb 2001

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – premium for grant of new lease – yield – review rents – value of existing and proposed interests – compensation for loss or damage – valuation costs – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, section 60 and Schedule 13

Citations:

[2001] EWLands LRA – 23 – 2000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225633

Belgian State v Temco Europe: ECJ 18 Nov 2004

Where the substance of a transaction was merely that premises were made available under a licence for occupation, rather than for the provision of services, a licence to occupy premises could be treated as a letting for the purpose of the Sixth Directive.

Citations:

C-284/03, [2004] EUECJ C-284/03, Times 25-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Cited – Stichtung ‘Goed Wonen’ and others v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 4-Oct-2001
A letting for the purpose of the VAT directive was essentially ‘the conferring by a landlord on a tenant for an agreed period and in return for payment of the right to occupy property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person . .
Cited – Blasi v Finanzamt Munchen ECJ 12-Feb-1998
ECJ Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-term accommodation for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219715

Dyment v Boyden and others: CA 26 Nov 2004

Mrs D had gone into business with the respondents to operate a residential care home. It was to be run from premises owned by the respondents. The respondents inter alia had failed to disclose previous convictions, the registration was cancelled, and the company was insolvent. Heads of agreement with an attached draft lease had been agreed but a lease was not signed by the Mrs D. As the business collapsed, Mrs D began another business taking the home’s residents. The respondents claimed arrears of rent from Mrs D.
Held:
Held: It is in principle wrong that an intended party to a lease should be treated as bound at a time before he has committed himself to the lease merely because the other party has delivered the lease in escrow and the escrow conditions are subsequently satisfied. The appeal by the respondents failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1586, Times 02-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 151, Insolvency Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Alan Estates Ltd v WG Stores Ltd and Another CA 1-Jul-1981
The proposed tenant wanted to get into possession, and was given a key and paid a quarter’s rent to the lessor’s solicitors to be held as stakeholders, before the lease had been formally granted. An undated lease and counterpart were executed and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219716

Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd, Targetfollow Group Ltd: ChD 9 Nov 2004

The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally suggested a loan, but then changed. Disagreements persisted after completion.
Held: There was insufficient agreement to constitute a binding obligation immediately before completion. If the contract was for an interest in land, section 2 of the 1989 Act was not satisfied. Unlike section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, section 2 does not merely prohibit the enforcement of oral contracts; it prohibits the making of oral contracts. An oral offer and acceptance does not, therefore, amount to a contract at all. No Pallant v Morgan equity arose. The claim was dismissed.
Discussing Tootal, Lewison J said: ‘However, Tootal Clothing Ltd v. Guinea Properties Ltd Management Ltd (1992) 64 P and CR 452 does appear to support Mr Purle’s submission; and although other parts of that decision were doubted in Grossman v. Hooper [2001] EWCA Civ 615; [2001] 3 F.C.R 666 [a reference to Scott LJ’s obiter observations in paragraph 4], this part was not. Tootal binds me; and I must therefore apply it. What Tootal appears to me to decide is that s. 2 applies only to an executory contract for the sale or disposition of an interest in land; and that once all the land elements of an alleged contract have been performed, the remaining parts of the alleged contract can be examined without reference to s.2 . . ‘

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2547 (Ch), (2005) 2 PandCR 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gibson v Manchester City Council HL 8-Mar-1979
The plaintiff sought specific performance of what he said was a contract for the sale of land.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In a case where a contract is alleged to have been made by an exchange of correspondence between the parties, in which . .
Cited – Smith v Henniker-Major and Co CA 22-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed the strike-out of his claim for professional negligence against the respondent solicitors. He claimed that the solicitors had acted in breach of their duty, and he then called a company meeting. Only he attended. He mistakenly . .
Cited – Grossman v Hooper CA 11-Apr-2001
The parties had lived together in the house, each contributing but held in the name of one only. The parties disputed the effect under the 1989 Act of a letter signed by each of them setting out their agreement as to the basis on which it was held. . .
Cited – Baird Textiles Ltd v Marks and Spencer plc CA 28-Feb-2001
The more embryonic is an oral ‘agreement’, the less likely it is that the parties intended to create legal relations at that stage. For there to be an agreement formed by conduct, there must be a course of dealing from which a contract is . .
Cited – Tootal Clothing Ltd v Guinea Properties Ltd CA 1992
By a single commercial transaction the parties agreed to the grant of a lease, on terms that Tootal (the intending lessee), would carry out shop-fitting works, have the benefit of a three months rent-free period during the which the works were to be . .
Cited – Godden v Merthyr Tydfil Housing Association CA 15-Jan-1997
The Plaintiff was a building contractor; the Defendant a housing association engaged in developing suitable sites for residential accommodation for letting to tenants. Before the contract the parties had successfully completed what was been called . .
Cited – Nweze and Another v Nwoko CA 29-Mar-2004
The parties had settled their dispute in an oral compromise agreement under which it was agreed that land would be sold at the best price reasonably obtainable. One now argued this was unenforceable as an agreement for the disposal of land requiring . .
Cited – Driver v Broad 1893
An agreement to create a floating charge counted as an interest in land. Kay LJ said that there was no distinction between a debenture which expressly gives the company liberty to dispose of the charged property ‘in the ordinary course of its . .
Cited – Morris v Baron and Co HL 1918
The House drew a distinction between a variation of a contract required to be evidenced in writing, and the rescission (or discharge) of such a contract. The former was itself required to be evidenced in writing; the latter was not.
Lord . .
Cited – McCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-1996
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .
Cited – Forster v Hale 1800
An oral partnership agreement can be valid and if the partnership assets include land, then the land is held on a constructive trust for the partnership. . .
Cited – Dale v Hamilton 1846
An oral partnership agreement mat be valid despite the partnership owning land. . .
Cited – Pallant v Morgan ChD 1952
The agents of two neighbouring landowners orally agreed in the auction room that the plaintiff’s agent would refrain from bidding at auction and that the defendant, if his agent’s bid was successful, would divide the land according to an agreed . .
Followed – Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another CA 10-Feb-2000
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . .
Cited – Lloyds Bank Plc v Carrick and Another CA 17-Apr-1996
Mrs Carrick was a widow who orally agreed with her brother in law, a builder, to sell her house and pay him the proceeds, for which he would provide her with a new house. She did so and moved into the new house, which remained in the . .
Cited – Oxley v Hiscock CA 6-May-2004
The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
Cited – Pridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; Hipwell and Marshall CA 28-Nov-1996
The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to . .
Cited – London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Others CA 22-Mar-2002
TBI was a property investor and developer with several subsidiaries. It agreed to sell some to London and Regional. The agreement provided for the vendor and the purchaser to use reasonable endeavours to agree the terms of a joint venture agreement . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD 25-Feb-2005
Principles for Proprietary Estoppel
A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
Cited – Van Laethem v Brooker and Another ChD 12-Jul-2005
The claimant asserted an interest in several properties by virtue of a common intention constructive trust or by proprietary estoppel. The parties had been engaged to be married.
Held: ‘A [constructive] trust arises in connection with the . .
Appeal from – Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd and Another CA 16-Nov-2005
The defendant had brought in the claimant in order to assist in satisfying its own obligations under a lease. The joint venture was not recorded in a formal agreement. The appellant asserted that a constructive trust had been created. The judge had . .
Cited – Oun v Ahmad ChD 19-Mar-2008
The parties agreed in writing for the sale of leasehold property to the claimant. One document had been signed, but later one said that it had not included an aportionment. Another document then set out the apportionment. When the defendant refused . .
Cited – Keay and Another v Morris Homes (West Midlands) Ltd CA 11-Jul-2012
The claimants sought damages alleging breach of contract. The defendants argued that the contract related to land, and since it was an oral agreement it was unenforceable under the 1989 Act.
Held: It was not possible that a contract which was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219338

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 areas surrounding the concrete bases on which the stations were erected. Despite the lease-like terms of the agreements, only licences had been granted since it was envisaged that the land owner could recover possession when required. The erection of the station was ‘expressed in the language of permissive use to place something on another’s land, and not as the grant of a proprietary interest in, and exclusive possession of, land.’

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2483 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 8, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe CA 1957
The trustees of a tennis club took possession of tennis courts and a clubhouse under a lease, and sought a new lease under the 1954 Act. The landlord said that they were only licensees and in any event were not entitled to a new lease since they . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Hagee (London) Ltd v A B Erikson and Larson (a Firm) CA 1975
Tenancy at Will not protectable by 1954 Act
A tenancy at will falls outside the protection of the 1954 Act, though ‘parties cannot impose upon an agreement, by a choice of label, a nature or character which on its proper construction it does not possess’. Entry into possession while . .
Cited – Cardiothoracic Institute v Shrewdcrest Ltd ChD 1986
The landlord hoped to redevelop a site. The defendant was in possession as a business tenant pursuant to three successive leases for which orders had been made under section 38(4) of the 1954 Act excluding the operation of sections 24 to 28 of the . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Cited – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Singh CA 1991
The Local Authority were lessees of some 500 square metres of public open space at St. Johns Hill in Wandsworth, which they and their horticultural sub-contractors visited periodically. It had been used by local inhabitants for leisure and . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Sinclair Collis Limited HL 7-Jun-2001
The appellants operated a system of placing their vending machines in clubs for the sale of cigarettes. They took as consideration a share of the profits of the cigarettes sold, and, in return, maintained the machines. They claimed that the machines . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Graysim Holdings Ltd v P and O Property Holdings Ltd HL 24-Nov-1995
A market hall had been let to a tenant under a lease. The tenant fitted out the entire hall with stalls and entered into agreements with the stallholders, by which they paid the tenant a rent and service charge for services provided by the tenant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Media, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219260

Yaxley v McGlave: CA 29 Oct 2001

The tenant of a flat sought leave to appeal a possession order. He claimed a tenancy having over the years done much work on the rest of the house in return for which he had at first been allowed to live there rent free, but latterly to ocupy these rooms for andpound;160.00 a week.
Held: The appellant had no reasonable prospects of overturning the facts found by the judge. Leave refused.

Judges:

Rix LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1694

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218485

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Another: CA 16 Jan 2002

Judges:

Judge, Latham, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 279

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 9(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Appeal from – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Wellcome Trust ChD 8-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216738

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Bello and Others: CA 22 Jan 1992

Occupation of property taken up ‘until works paid for’ was sufficiently certain to create a tenancy, despite the absence of a certain term. It would be clear when it was to come to an end. Accordingly the tenant had locus as against the mortgagee in possession proceedings.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jan-1992

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.78868

Hackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd: QBD 14 Jul 2003

The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with its own obligations.
Held: The general words of section 89 do not permit the high court to find that section 89 does not apply to consent orders. The possession order could not be postponed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1813 (QB), Times 05-Aug-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 363, [2004] 2 All ER 373

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1980 89(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

per incuriam – Bain and Co v Church Commissioners for England ChD 1989
Section 89 does not apply to an order for possession made by the High Court, and an application for an adjournment of a possession order must be refused. The word ‘Court’ must be construed to refer to the County Court only: ‘possession of a dwelling . .
Cited – Re International Tin Council ChD 1987
An order for the winding up of a foreign company operates universally, applies to all the foreign company’s assets and brings into play the full panoply of powers and duties under the Insolvency Act 1986 like any other winding up order. Millett J . .
Cited – Re International Tin Council CA 1989
Creditors sought to treat the International Tin Council as an ‘association’ for the purposes of a provision under the Companies Act 1985 allowing for unregistered companies to be wound up.
Held: The decision in Re a Company was binding. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .
Applied – Admiral Taverns (Cygnet Ltd) v Daly and Another CA 25-Nov-2008
The landlord appealed against a stay made on its suspended possession order by the High Court, saying that only the county court had such jurisdiction.
Held: ‘court’ in the section must mean any court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.185058

Dallhold Estates (UK) Pty Ltd (In Administration) v Lindsey Trading Props Inc: CA 15 Dec 1993

The landlord is to provide a service address if an agricultural tenancy includes a dwelling, but relief from the consequences of non compliance with section 48(1) may be obtained by service of an appropriate notice. Immaterial misdescriptions or inaccuracies which do not have the potential to mislead will not invalidate a notice.

Citations:

Times 15-Dec-1993, [1994] 17 EG 148, [1994] 1 EGLR 93

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 48, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Limited – 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 – 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 – Mason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.79786

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 and address in England or Wales at which he can be served with notices. If the name and address is stated in the lease or tenancy agreement without limitation or qualification, it is a necessary implication that he can be communicated with at that address and hence it is a place to which notices can be sent. The section does not require that the notice shall state that it is the address at which notices can be served. The mischief at which the section was aimed was the problem created when the landlord’s identity was not known and/or the tenant did not know of an address within the jurisdiction to which notices could be sent and proceedings served.
Provided the name and address is communicated to the tenant in writing, which it is if it is stated in the lease or tenancy agreement, there is no need for a separate notice.’

Judges:

Sir Ralph Gibson, Stuart Smith LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-1994, [1995] 27 HLR 78, [1995] 1 EGLR 72

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Limited – Dallhold Estates (UK) Pty Ltd (In Administration) v Lindsey Trading Props Inc CA 15-Dec-1993
The landlord is to provide a service address if an agricultural tenancy includes a dwelling, but relief from the consequences of non compliance with section 48(1) may be obtained by service of an appropriate notice. Immaterial misdescriptions or . .

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 – 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 . .
Cited – Leeds v London Borough of Islington Admn 29-Jan-1998
. .
Cited – Morgan v Hamid-Zadeh CA 15-Sep-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.88843

Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Ltd v Fahad Al Tamimi and First Penthouse Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene,Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1072

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Meretz Investments Nv v ACP Ltd QBD 27-May-2002
Meretz sued ACP for monies alleged to be due under agreements. . .
See Also – Britel Corporation Nv and Another v First Penthhouse Ltd and others CA 7-Aug-2002
Application for permission against judge’s refusal to continue interim injunctions.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Appeal from – First Penthouse Limited/Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited/Fahad Al Tamimi First Penthouse Limited Varlet International Limited Ruth Gary Orbach Quallvile Limited Norval Holdings Limited ChD 14-Nov-2003
Several transactions had taken place with regard to a lease of a roof void, which was to be developed for penthouses. The lease had been charged to secure funding. The development did not proceed to schedule, and a s146 notice was served. It was . .

Cited by:

See Also – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199803

Crago v Julian: CA 22 Jan 1992

An intended assignment of a tenancy which had not been completed in writing by deed was ineffective as against Landlord. An assignment of a weekly tenancy must be by deed if it is to be valid.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jan-1992, [1992] 1 All ER 744

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.79593

Kennedy v K B Van Emden and Co; Jordan v Gershon Young Finer and Green and Similar: CA 27 Mar 1996

A solicitor failed in 1983 to advise a purchaser of the fact that premium she was paying on purchasing a leasehold flat was unlawful under the Act, and would be unrecoverable on the sale. Before trial however, in 1989 the law changed and the premium would now be recoverable.
Held: It was wrong to assess damages mechanistically, and though the usual rule would be to test the damages at the date of loss, it was right to include an assessment at the date of trial if that gave a better view of the actual loss.
Nourse LJ said: ‘the damages are to be assessed in the real world. Compensation is a reward for real, not hypothetical, loss. It is not to be made an occasion for recovery in respect of a loss which might have been, but has not been, suffered.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Schiemann

Citations:

Gazette 01-May-1996, Times 05-Apr-1996, [1997] 2 EGLR 137

Statutes:

Rent Act 1977 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – County Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v Alan R Pulver and Co (a Firm) CA 1987
The claimant sought damages after his negligent solicitors had saddled him with a ruinous underlease. They had had to buy themselves out of the lease. The court considered the date at which damages were to be calculated.
Held: The starting . .
Cited – Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon and another v E Survey Ltd (formerly known as GA Valuation and Survey Ltd) ChD 14-Jan-2003
The claimants purchased a house relying upon a survey by the defendants. Although the defendants reported long standing movement of the property, the defendants failed to report that to be saleable, a long investigation would be required, reducing . .
Cited – Bacciottini and Another v Gotelee and Goldsmith (A Firm) CA 18-Mar-2016
A property subject to a planning condition was purchased by the appellant under the advice of the respondent, who failed to notify him of the existence of a planning condition. The judge had awarded the claimant pounds 250 being the cost of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Professional Negligence, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.82731

Duppa v Mayo: KBD 1669

‘The law leans against forfeitures.’ To forfeit a lease for non payment of rent, the landlord must make a formal demand for payment at the premises, and require the exact sum due to be paid before sunset on the last date for payment in accordance with the lease. Rent is not due until the midnight on the day on which it is reserved.

Judges:

Lord Coke

Citations:

(1669) 1 Wms Saund 282, [1669] EWHC KB J97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195880

Smith v Muscat: CA 10 Jul 2003

The tenant was sued by his landlord for arrears of rent, but sought an equitable set-off for damages for disrepair accruing under the previous landlord.
Held: If the entitlement to recover arrears of rent passes from assignor to assignee, and if the amount of that entitlement is reduced or extinguished at common law by money which the tenant has expended in remedying the assignor’s breaches of covenant (in other words, the abatement of rent passes too), it is not easy to see what principle of law or justice denies similar relief to a lessee who may not have had enough money to do the repairs but was entitled to be compensated from day to day for the conditions he has consequently had to live in. The decision in Lotteryking was to be followed, and the tenant’s right of set-off was exercisable against the assignee landlord.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 962, Times 12-Aug-2003, Gazette 18-Sep-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 853

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 77 141 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Taylor vBeale 1591
Where a tenant is required to spend money on remedying the breach of the landlord’s covenant to repair, the money so spent could be invoked to abate the rent even if it thereafter falls due to a successor landlord. Discharge by the tenant of the . .
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 – Duncliffe v Caefelin Properties Ltd ChD 1989
The defendants had taken an assignment of the reversion of a flat held on a long lease. The assignors had gone into liquidation when in prolonged breach of the lessor’s repairing covenant. The lessee asserted that the effect of s.142 on an . .
Cited – Lotteryking Ltd v AMEC Properties Ltd ChD 1995
The tenant sought to prevent the sale of the landlord’s reversion until the lessor’s repairing obligations had been met. One of the grounds was that on a sale the tenant’s right of set-off would not pass.
Held: An order was refused. Lightman . .
Cited – Roxburghe v Cox 1881
K owed the plaintiff andpound;5,000 plus interest. He also owed the defendants, who were his bankers, andpound;647. When he retired from the army the proceeds of sale of his commission, namely andpound;3000, were sent to the defendants as his . .
Cited – Government of Newfoundland v Newfoundland Railway PC 7-Feb-1888
A railway company and its assignees brought action the Government. Under the contract the company was to build a railway subsidised by the government. The railway was not completed. The parties disputed whether the contract was ‘entire’ and no part . .
Cited – Hanak v Green CA 1958
A builder was sued for his failure to complete the works he had contracted for. The buider sought a set-off against that claim of three of his one claims. One, under the contract, was for losses from the defendant’s refusal to allow his workmen . .
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 by:

Cited – Sonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Cited – Edlington Properties Ltd v J H Fenner and Co Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2005
The landlord sought repayment of arrears of rent. The tenant sought to raise a set off which had arisen against the landlord’s predecessor arising from defects in the property they had constructed.
Held: The tenant had no right of set off. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184774

Collins v Howard De Walden Estates Limited: CA 16 Apr 2003

The tenant sought the right to purchase the freehold reversion. Her landlord resisted saying that the properties were excluded from enfranchisement being divided vertically.
Held: The cases are fact dependent, and earlier precedents must be treated with caution after Malekshad. The words ‘which may reasonably be called a house’ are words of limitation. The buildings in this case were not divided vertically in the manner contemplated by section 2(1)(b). Appeal dismissed

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 545, Gazette 09-May-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1987 1 2(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 – Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes HL 1982
Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Land

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181378

Brown v Shevill: 13 Nov 1834

A butcher sent a beast to the shop of W., another butcher, to be slaughtered : after it had been slaughtered, and the careass had remained in the shop for some time (but how long did not appear), W’s landlord distrained it for rent arrear : Held, that the carcass was privileged from distress.

Citations:

[1834] EngR 1020, (1834) 2 Ad and E 138, (1834) 111 ER 54

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.317696

Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation v Next Plc Etc: ChD 5 Dec 1995

Trade fixtures attached by a tenant will not usually add to rent on review.

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-1995, [1996] 33 EG 91

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Laura Investments v Havering ChD 1992
The land was undeveloped when let to the tenant, who covenanted to build on it. On the rent review, the landlord contended that the rent should be calculated on the developed value, rather than in the condition as originally let.
Held: In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84415