Tag: Landlord and Tenant

Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd, Shirayama: ChD 9 Dec 1999

The tenant sought an injunction against its neighbour and landlord to prevent it letting an adjoining property without a restriction similar to the one in its own lease. The claimants sought reassurance from the defendant tenants of the adjoining propery that they would act in accordance with the retriction, but no re-assurance was given.
Held: The claimants were prevented under the 1925 Act from registering a notice, and the defendants took the lease with notice of the restriction. However, the words ‘any demised premises’ in the 1995 Act referred to the premises demised by the particular lease in question, and not to any other premises demised by the landlord. Having granted a lease of part to the claimant covenanting not to allow any other part to be used as a gift shop, the landlord demised another part to the first defendant without incorporating a similar restriction. The landlords were not to be injuncted not to do something which they would not themselves be doing, but which would be done by another tenant. No notice was registerable.
Neuberger J: ‘In my judgment, while it is right to take into account the fact that the draftsman of the lease has departed from, or has omitted part of, a well-established form of words, that will not, at least on its own, normally be a sufficient reason for not giving the words he has used the natural meaning which they would otherwise bear. The fact that the draftsman has used a different form of words in relation to two provisions of a lease concerned with the same concept, in this case the use to which land is not to be put, is also something which should be taken into account when construing either of those provisions, but, again, I do not consider that it should normally justify departing from the natural meaning of either provision.
While it is appropriate for the court to contrast a provision which falls to be construed with a well-established form of words or with the way in which another provision in the lease is drafted, it is also right for the court to bear in mind the way that leases are drafted in practice. It is well known that draftsmen of leases will frequently use many expressions where one will do – see eg per Hoffmann J in Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v British Railways Board [1987] 2 EGLR 137 at 138 and in Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd [1990] 1 EGLR 155 at 158. Furthermore, draftsmen may take the wording of different clauses from different precedents and different clauses may come from different hands.’

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] 1 All ER 975, [2000] Ch 234

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3(5), Land Registration Act 1925 50(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Darstone Ltd v Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd 1969
. .
Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
Cited – Tea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Morrells of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others CA 21-Jul-2000
A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile.
Held: The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section . .
Cited – Ranson v Ranson CA 13-Dec-2001
There had been protracted ancillary relief litigation between the parties resulting in a final order. Part of the order related to property, but the husband asserted that he was incapable of conveying the property since, because of title . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84420

Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: ChD 29 Mar 1996

The landlord’s agents wrote to the proposed tenant offering a quarterly tenancy of the premises. The tenancy was to commence at a future date. The defendant endorsed the letter and returned it to say he would abide by the terms, and he was allowed into possession. He ceased to pay rent, and eventually came to claim that he had acquired the freehold by adverse possession.
Held: The appropriate limitation period of twelve years ran from the date of the accrual of the right of action. The landlord said that, as a lease in writing, time ran only from the date of a notice to quit. The tenant said no lease in writing existed unless it was dispositive, ie a document creating a leasehold estate. The document was not executed as a deed, and could only create a legal estate if it fell within s54(2) of the 1925 Act. Since it did not take affect in possession, it was reversionary and could not fall within the exception. A tenancy for less than three years but without immediate possession being taken must be by deed: ‘there was no ‘lease in writing’ for the purposes of paragraph 5(1) if the writing, however comprehensively set out and clearly referable to the existence of a new lease, was merely evidential. If there was to be a ‘lease in writing’ the writing itself had to ‘pass an interest’ and ‘operate a lease’ or ‘create an estate.’ and ‘Reversionary lease conferring no immediate right to take possession were altogether excluded form the ambit of section 54(2) of the 1925 Act. Such reversionary leases could take effect only if made by deed. Therefore the tenancy which undoubtedly came into existence was not one created by the tenancy document but rather one which arose by operation of law, by the payment and receipt of rent.’ The action was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.

Judges:

James Munby QC

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1996, [1996] 2 All ER 683

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 54(2), Limitation Act 1980 Sch1 p5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Doe d. Landsell v Gower 1851
The tenant was let into parochial property by the parish officers making an entry in the vestry book ‘We the churchwardens and overseers of P., do hereby agree to let to JB of . . . The newly erected cottage . . Situate . . . At the rent of 1s 6d . .
Cited – Moses v Lovegrove CA 29-Apr-1952
The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83180

Southwark London Borough Council v Mills and Others: ChD 11 Mar 1998

A claim for a breach of the landlord’s covenant for quiet enjoyment, through the sound of normal activities from a neighbour being heard, succeeded.

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1998, [1998] 3 WLR 49

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1979 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

First instance – Southwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
Appeal from – London Borough of Southwark v Mills and Others CA 29-Jul-1998
The authority appealed against an award made in arbitration proceedings brought by its tenant who complained that she could hear everything happening in a neighbouring flat, even though the tenants of that flat wer acting reaosnably.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.89430

Sportoffer Ltd v Erewash Borough Council: ChD 17 Mar 1999

The landlords were the local authority, and operated a municipal leisure centre. The tenants were the tenants of a squash club and applied for consent to a change of use to use as a leisure centre. The landlords objected on the ground that the proposed change would damage the viability of their municipal leisure centre.
Held: The refusal was upheld as reasonable. When considering whether the landlord had unreasonably withheld his consent to an alteration in the user of premises, the court must allow the landlord to take into account matters relating to other of its properties and to look only to its own interests: ‘I would find it surprising if a landlord could not reasonably take into account the circumstances of other property of his own, whether let or in hand, when considering an application for a consent to change of use under a lease. A shopping centre is an obvious example, but not the only case, where estate management considerations may suggest that one type of use be allowed under a lease but others not, because of the circumstances of other adjoining property. I find nothing in Balcombe L.J.’s judgment, nor in the case cited by him in relation to the proposition which I have mentioned, which suggests that this is not legitimate or that Sir John Pennycuick’s decision in Whiteminster Estates Ltd is wrong. I therefore hold that, following Sir John’s decision, a landlord can legitimately take into account considerations relating to adjoining property of his own, whether let or not.’

Judges:

Lloyd J

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999, [1999] 3 EGLR 136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Whiteminster Estates Ltd v Hodges Menswear Ltd 1974
The landlords carried on business as men’s outfitters. They also owned the shop next door which had been let as a cafe. The tenant applied for consent to assign the lease to another men’s outfitter, and the landlord refused on the ground that the . .
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 by:

Cited – Sargeant, and Sargeant v Macepark (Whittlebury) Limited ChD 8-Jun-2004
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.89458

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 guests is taxable, as constituting the provision of accommodation in sectors with a function similar to that of the hotel sector. In that regard, Article 13.B(b)(1) does not preclude taxation in respect of letting agreements concluded for a period of less than six months, if that duration is deemed to reflect the parties’ intention. It is, however, for the national court to determine whether, in a case before it, certain factors (such as the automatic renewal of the letting agreement) suggest that the duration stated in the letting agreement does not reflect the parties’ true intention, in which case the actual total duration of the accommodation, rather than that specified in the letting agreement, would have to be taken into consideration. A distinction drawn by Member States, who enjoy a margin of discretion in this regard, between accommodation in the hotel sector and the letting of dwelling accommodation on the basis of its duration constitutes an appropriate criterion of distinction, since one of the ways in which hotel accommodation specifically differs from the letting of dwelling accommodation is the duration of the stay, and the use to this end of the criterion of the provision of short-term accommodation, being defined as less than six months, appears to be a reasonable means by which to ensure that the transactions of taxable persons whose business is similar to the essential function performed by a hotel, namely the provision of temporary accommodation on a commercial basis, are subject to tax.

Citations:

C-346/95, [1998] ECR 1-481, [1998] EUECJ C-346/95

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Colaingrove Limited v The Commissioners for Customs and Excise ChD 16-Apr-2003
The Directive exempted from a charge to VAT for letting of imoveable property. The taxpayer challenged the requirement to charge to VAT his business of leasing pitches for caravans.
Held: The directive allowed member states to derogate from . .
Cited – Colaingrove Ltd v the Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 19-Feb-2004
The taxpayer licensed static caravans on seasonal pitches on its land. They claimed exemption from charging VAT on the basis that they were residential lettings exempt under European legislation.
Held: The appeal failed. The legislation . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, VAT, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161713

Parker v Briggs: CA 1893

‘the appellants contend . . that a parol lease to commence at a future date was in point of law and in fact an agreement for a lease, and as such must be in writing under section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, even though the lease agreed to be granted were for a less period than three years (Edge v Strafford 1 Cr and J 391) . .The court, however, decided against the appellants . . two of the learned judges holding that it was possible to create a parol lease to commence in the future (Ryley v Hicks Stra 651)’

Citations:

(1893) 37 Sol Jo 452

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ChD 20-Mar-1996
The parties had agreed for a lease, and the tenant entered possession, but no formal lease was executed. The tenant stopped paying rent in 1977 or 1984. He now claimed rectification of the registers to show him as proprietor. The landlord argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.263782

Parks v Esso Petroleum Company Limited: CA 23 Jul 1999

The claimant sought to add a claim under the regulations for compensation after termination of his agency for the defendants. The lower court had rejected his claim saying that the petrol products he sold were at a price fixed by Esso, and that since he did not negotiate the price he fell outside the regulations.
Held: The word ‘negotiate’ need not include the bargaining of price, but did require more than a collection of funds after a self-service sale: ‘he took no part in the customer’s choice and self-service.’

Judges:

Morritt, Thorpe, Popplewell LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Brau AG ECJ 28-Feb-1991
ECJ A beer supply agreement is prohibited by Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty if two cumulative conditions are met. The first is that, having regard to the economic and legal context of the agreement at issue, it . .
Cited – Gibbs Mew Plc v Gemmell and Gibbs Mew Plc and Centric Pub Company Ltd v Gemmell CA 22-Jul-1998
The brewery sought possession of a public house, tied by type. The lessee claimed damages for breach of Art. 81 and a declaration that the Block Exemption was inapplicable to his lease. His appeal from the judge’s order in favour of the brewery was . .
Cited – Crehan v Courage Limited and Byrne and Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd and Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd CA 27-May-1999
The court considered the validity of beer ties affecting public houses. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Claramoda Ltd v Zoomphase Ltd (T/A Jenny Packham) ComC 13-Nov-2009
The former distribution agent sought to claim under the Regulations. The defendant said that the claim had not been notified as it should, within one year. The agency was for the sale of fashion items. Termination had been informal, stating that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.146857

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Sinclair Collis Limited: Admn 9 Jul 1998

A licence fee paid to a shopkeeper for the installation of a cigarette vending machine in the shop and to maintain and operate it was a licence to occupy land and so was an exempt supply.

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1998, Gazette 09-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 727, [1998] STC 841

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Sinclair Collis Limited CA 23-Jun-1999
The commissioners appealed against a decision that the agreements under which the respondents hired out vending displays to shops were for the occupation of land, and so were exempt from VAT.
Held: (a) the terms of the Directive are to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138848

Morris, Re: Flat 4 187 Goldhurst Terrace: UTLC 30 Dec 2009

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – preliminary issue – whether tenant entitled to contend that credit for earlier years be set off against amounts claimed in subsequent years – held that he was – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 290 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.415049

Montoya v Hackney London Borough Council: QBD 15 Jul 2004

The tenant claimed that the defendant local authority landlord had failed in its duty of repair. A jointly instructed expert gave evidence that the disrepair alleged was not disrepair at all because it was commensurate with the age and type of dwelling, and within the exceptions allowed for within s11(3). Nevertheless the judge at first instance found for the tenant that the defects constituted disrepair.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no evidential basis for the judge’s conclusion, and te judge should not have departed from the only expert evidence in the case.

Citations:

Unreported, 15 July 2004

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.235708

Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc: ChD 19 Apr 2000

The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The 1987 Act did not confer a right to pre-emption as such. Having gone through the procedure the landlord could still sell elsewhere. He was not under an obligation to disclose every term of the proposed disposal. The Act does not allow a right to claim damages for breach of statutory duty. The Act had provided for a remedy for a failure to serve a correct notice, and the second action was itself an abuse of process.

Judges:

Justice Laddie

Citations:

Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWHC Ch 178, [2001] Ch 493

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Michaels and Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited CA 20-Jun-1997
The respondent sought security for costs. One plaintiff was bankrupt, and an outstanding costs order had not been met.
Held: The matter should not be adjourned pending an application for legal aid, and nor should the considerable interest in . .

Cited by:

Approved – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD 3-Aug-2004
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . .
See Also – Michaels and Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited CA 20-Jun-1997
The respondent sought security for costs. One plaintiff was bankrupt, and an outstanding costs order had not been met.
Held: The matter should not be adjourned pending an application for legal aid, and nor should the considerable interest in . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Doubted – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Torts – Other

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135764

Avon Ground Rents Ltd v Child: UTLC 20 Jun 2018

Landlord and Tenant – Administration Charge – County Court claim transferred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for determination – Other claims not transferred but determined by FTT judge sitting as a judge of the County Court – Appropriate procedure – Costs

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 204 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.620099

Midland Freeholds Ltd, Re Appeal Against A Decision of A Leasehold Valution Tribunal: UTLC 21 Aug 2012

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – maisonette – premium – relativity – LVT granting permission to appeal on grounds that it failed to take proper account of LEASE graph of relativities – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 296 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.464772

Levitt and Another v London Borough of Camden: UTLC 21 Sep 2011

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – communal heating system – renewal of equipment in tenants’ flats – whether cost of replacement falls within landlord’s responsibility – whether cost properly included in service charge – construction of leases – method of calculating service charge – reasonableness of service charge – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s19 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 366 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.445688

Peverel Om Ltd Mackenzie and Others: UTLC 12 May 2010

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – whether cost of roof works not reasonably incurred because management company owed a duty to recover the cost from builder/landlord who let the premises – no duty of care arose – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ss. 19 and 20C.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 137 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.416748