Tag: Landlord and Tenant

Francia Properties Ltd v St James House Freehold Ltd, Re: St James House: UTLC 9 Apr 2018

Leasehold Enfranchisement – Roof Top Development Potential – LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT – roof top development potential – refusal of planning permission before valuation date – planning permission granted after FTT decision – FTT wrong to take into account refusals after valuation date – appeal allowed and value of roof top development re-determined at pounds 100,000

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 79 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.608672

Murphy v Hurly: HL 1922

Consequences of a defect in the repair of a sea wall possession of which had been retained by the landlord. The House considered the rule that a landlord is not liable under a covenant with his tenant to repair premises which are in the possession of the tenant and not of the landlord, unless and until the landlord has notice of the disrepair.
Held: The rule did not apply in this case.
Lord Buckmaster said that the rule had to be considered by reference to ‘the actual facts existing in each case’, and it was based ‘upon the consideration whether the circumstances are such that knowledge of what may be required to be done to comply with the covenant cannot reasonably be supposed to be possessed by the one party while it is by the other’.
Lord Atkinson described ‘the presumption upon which the right to notice is stated to depend’ as being ‘that the tenant being in occupation has a full opportunity of seeing and knowing the condition of the premises he occupies and their need of repair, while the landlord has no such opportunity’.
Lord Sumner said that the reason for the rule was ‘(1) that the tenant is in occupation and the landlord is not; (2) that the tenant, therefore, has the means of knowledge peculiarly in his own possession . .; and (3) . . the repairs of dwelling-houses . . are . . not . . such as to demand of the landlord incessant vigilance . .’

Judges:

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sumner

Citations:

[1922] 1 AC 369

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622320

Tredway v Machin: CA 1922

Judges:

Sir Richard Collins MR

Citations:

(1904) 91 LT 310

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622319

Avon Ground Rents Ltd v Cowley and Others Re: The Interchange: UTLC 21 Mar 2018

Landlord and Tenant – Service Charges – Reasonableness – reasonableness of sums payable in advance – relevance of NHBC warranty – whether necessary that receipt of funds from NHBC be guaranteed before being taken into account in determining reasonableness of advance payments – ss.19(2), 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 92 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19(2) 27A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.606884

Standard Life Company Ltd v Greycoat Devonshire Square Ltd: ChD 10 Apr 2000

A clause in a lease which reserved rent and additional contributions to the fees and other sums payable to the tenant by virtue of his occupation did not mean that the tenant had to pay on part of sums received by him arising from the dilapidations of a sub-tenant. The definition was of ‘the aggregate of all rents fees and other moneys from whatever source . . (payable) by virtue of its estate or interest.’ The sum was compensation for damage to the property and was not derived from the estate in the land.

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-2000, Gazette 14-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89488

Staszewski v Maribella Ltd: CA 28 Mar 1997

A landlord’s furnishing to his tenants of the particulars of a purchase must state the reason for the statement. A landlord’s reply to a notice which was equivocating as to the validity of claim was not a valid answer.

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-1997, Gazette 16-Apr-1997

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89509

Gateway Property Holdings Ltd v 6-10 Montrose Gardens Rtm Company Ltd: UTLC 8 Sep 2011

LANDLORD AND TENANT – right to manage – time of application of claim for right to Manage – notice of invitation to participate prior to making claim – appeal allowed – Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ss71-80, 84.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 349 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.445687

Green v 180 Archway Road Management Co Ltd: UTLC 23 Jul 2012

LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charge – lessor covenanting to insure in joint names of lessor and lessee – lessor placing insurance with lessee’s name omitted – whether lessor entitled to recover a proportion of the premium

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 245 (LC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.463430

Moore v Clark: 5 Jul 1813

If the Plaintiff declares on a general covenant to repair a messuage, and assigns a breach, per quod he was put to expence, it is sufficient for a tenant to plead performance as to all except as to the repairs of a party-wall, and that those repairs were rendered necessary, and were done under the statute 14 G. 3, c, 78, and did not become necessary by the Defendant’s default, and that the Defendant was not the owner of the improved rent. – -And if the Plaintiff is possessed of any facts to charge the Defendant with a proportion of the repairs, he ought to reply them.

Judges:

Sir James Mansfield CJ and Gibbs J

Citations:

[1813] EngR 479, (1813) 5 Taunt 90, (1813) 128 ER 620 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Makin v Watkinson 1870
The court considered the extent of a Landlord’s duty of repair where he had entered into an express covenant for the purpose. . .
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.338244

Makin v Watkinson: 1870

The court considered the extent of a Landlord’s duty of repair where he had entered into an express covenant for the purpose.

Citations:

(1870-71) LR 6 Ex 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Moore v Clark 5-Jul-1813
If the Plaintiff declares on a general covenant to repair a messuage, and assigns a breach, per quod he was put to expence, it is sufficient for a tenant to plead performance as to all except as to the repairs of a party-wall, and that those repairs . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.259928

Morgan v Liverpool Corporation: CA 1927

The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the defect was latent one (of which the plaintiff did not know and about which accordingly he could not give any notice) but it was contended that (there was a statutory obligation on the landlord which was different from that contained in an ordinary covenant and that in the Act, there were no words requiring that any notice should be given to the landlord. He said that L failed to perform the statutory obligationn that the house would be ‘kept in all respects reasonably fit ‘for human habitation.’ L had a right to enter the property to inspect its condition.
Held: L was not liable. Liability would be conditional upon his having been given notice of any defects even though they were latent ones. The right to enter to inspect did not change this.
Lord Hanworth MR said that it was long established that where there is a covenant on the part of a landlord to keep premises in repair the tenant must give notice to the landlord of what is out of repair. Notice was required whether or not the landlord had means of access. The fact that the origin of a covenant was statutory did not give the covenant any higher authority than one inserted in a contract by the parties.
Atkin LJ said: ‘Here is a case of something which arose quite suddenly. It is possible that a very careful inspection of the window cords might have revealed the state in which they were, but there are many other defects which arise quite suddenly, leaks quite suddenly spring up in joints of water pipes and gas pipes, and so on, and to say that the landlord is responsible for the consequences of those not being in repair in circumstances in which no time could have elapsed between the time when the defect first arose and the time when the injury from it occurred, would certainly be to impose a very harsh obligation upon a landlord which the Courts do not impose except subject to a condition that he must receive notice of the defect. To my mind in those circumstances it is clear that, if the landlord gives the exclusive occupation to the tenant, the landlord does not in fact know, and in this case could not know of the defect.’
In ordinary circumstances L’s obligation to repair does not come into existence until he has notice of the defect which his contract to repair requires him to make good: ‘I think the power of access that is given, extensive though it may be, does not take the case away from the principle from which the Courts have inferred the condition that the liability is not to arise except on notice. The position is quite a satisfactory one, because as soon as the tenant is aware of the defect he must then give notice, and if the landlord does not repair it, the landlord will be liable. If in fact the tenant is not able to ascertain the defect, there seems to be no reason why the landlord should be exposed to what remains still the same injustice of being required to repair a defect of which he does not know, which seems to me to be the real reason for the rule. This was a case in which notice was not given to the landlord. As I have said, it appears to me that, as soon as the defect became so known by the fall of the sash, the tenant was able to give notice to the landlord and did give notice. In my view the landlord then became under a liability to repair in the circumstances of this case, because if he did not, the house would be in a state not in all respects fit for human habitation ; but as no notice was given, I think the landlord was not liable.’
Lawrence LJ said: ‘On the question of notice I am in complete agreement with the judgments delivered by the Master of the Rolls and Atkin LJ and have very little to add. In my opinion the established rule is that the obligation of the landlord to keep the premises in repair is not broken unless notice has been given to him of the want of repair, and that mere knowledge is not sufficient to saddle the landlord with liability. The foundation of such rule is that the tenant in occupation is generally in a far better position to know of any want of repair. I am further of opinion that for the reasons stated by Atkin LJ the rule applies to latent as well as to patent defects, and certainly applies to the defect which existed in the present case.’

Judges:

Lord Hanworth MR, Atkin LJ, Lawrence LJ

Citations:

[1927] 2 KB 131

Statutes:

Housing Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – McCarrick v Liverpool Corporation HL 1947
Premises’ Defect – No Notice Liability on L
The tenant’s wife was injured falling from defective stone steps leading from the kitchen to the back kitchen of the house. Under section the 1936 Act, the judge found the house not to have been kept in the state required. No notice of want of . .
Cited – O’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .
Cited – Cunningham v Birmingham City Council Admn 6-May-1997
The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural . .
Cited – Edwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.259929

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 issue of a warrant, and the tenant argued that a new possession was required, saying that the further agreement constituted the grant of a new tenancy or licence, and that this happened irrespective of anybody’s intentions.
Held: No new tenancy had been created, and no new possession order was required. It would be wrong to require the authority to apply to court each time a tenant under a suspended order was late in payment. The tenancy was determined when the conditions were breached. The authority might waive that breach, in which case situation continued as before. Whether the variation created a new tenancy was a question of fact. In this case the tenancy ended twice. The waivers by the authority did not determine the tenancy. Had he applied, the tenant would have been granted a postponment of the possession on the new agreement.
‘The tenancy continues until the date on which the tenant is ordered to give up possession. If the order is suspended on terms, the tenancy continues until there is a breach of those terms and then determines. The Local Authority is free to treat the tenant as a trespasser and to request the court to issue a warrant of execution. The tenant, on the other hand, is entitled to apply to the court to vary the terms of the order by postponing the date of possession. If it does so, the tenancy is reinstated and treated as if it had not determined.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1996, (1996) 28 HLR 469, (1996) 72 P and CR 507

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – 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 . .
Cited – Referral By the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission In the Cases of William Gray James Bernard O’Rourke v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 23-Dec-2004
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Marshall v Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 27-Apr-2001
There were three issues; (1) whether it was proper for the judge to have struck out disrepair proceedings when it could be seen that an application to discharge or rescind a suspended possession order would be likely to succeed (2) whether the . .
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 . .
Applied – 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 . .
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 – 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: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81015

Dream Factory Ltd and Another v Crown Estate Commissioners: ChD 22 Oct 1998

An agreement for lease containing provision that it could not be revoked in circumstances where a full tenant would have the right to appeal against forfeiture, was enforceable in the terms stated though unhappily phrased. The notice was insufficient to determine the lease.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1998

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80131

BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and Another: ChD 27 Feb 2001

An office buidling had a toughened glass cladding. When a cladding plate slipped and fell, the local authority issed a dangerous structures notice. The landlord served a notice to use the Act to divest himself of responsibility for repairs.
Held: For a lease covenant to be subject to the Act, whether for the landlord or tenant, with the effect that that party was released on an assignment by a successor, the covenant had to be transmissible and not personal. Only covenants therefore enforceable against the current tenant or current landlord were covered and if it was one ‘falling to be complied with by the landlord’, such person being ‘the person for the time being entitled to the reversion expectant on the term of the tenancy’. Though the covenant was contained in a separate document, it remained for these purposes a covenant within the Act, and capable of being subject to its provisions. Here the landlord was not released.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 30-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 277, [2001] EGCS 31, [2001] 2 All ER 914, [2002] Ch 12

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 8 28

Citing:

Appealed to – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another CA 30-Nov-2001
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – BHP Petroleum Great Britain Ltd v Chesterfield Properties Ltd and another CA 30-Nov-2001
The claimant granted a lease to the respondents, and then assigned the reversion to another company. It gave notice to the tenant of its desire to be released from its obligations as landlord. The tenant did not serve any counter-notice. Defects . .
Cited – 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 – London Diocesan Fund and others v Avonridge Property Company Ltd and Phithwa HL 1-Dec-2005
The defendant had taken on a lease of a parade of shops, and sub-let each shop for a full premium at a nominal rent. It sought to limit its own liability to pay the head rent by limiting the covenant in the sub-leases to pay the head rent to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78384

Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v Bromley London Borough Council: ChD 9 Jan 2001

Applicants sought the right to fly from the airport. Local residents sought to intervene on the basis that if the lease controlling such rights was construed in such a way as to allow such an extension, this would interfere with their human rights. The lease had to be construed against the factual background as at the time it was entered into, and the Act could not affect that interpretation, and there was no basis for implying any such term into the lease. The local authority was not acting unlawfully in granting a declaration in the terms it proposed.

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-2001, Times 09-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78394

Bater v Greenwich London Borough Council: CA 28 Sep 1999

The couple being joint tenants of the matrimonial home had applied for its purchase form the Council. Divorce proceedings commenced and she purported to terminate the joint tenancy. He applied to set aside the notice, and the Local Authority intervened. Neither the right to buy, nor the notice to terminate were dispositions of property, and the Court had no capacity to set them aside.
Held: ‘It is now established beyond a peradventure that a right to buy is dependant on the existence of a secure tenancy to which it is incidental.’

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1920, [1999] 2 FLR 993

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78285

Re a Company: 2007

There was no difference between forfeiture and termination under the break clause for the purpose of considering apportionment or otherwise of rent paid in advance.

Citations:

[2007] BPIR

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616755

Capital and City Holdings Ltd v Dean Warburg Ltd: CA 1988

There was no right of reimbursement under the 1870 Act of rent paid in advance even where the reddendum also included the words ‘proportionately for any part of a year’.

Citations:

(1988) 58 P and CR 346, [1989] 1 EGLR 90

Statutes:

Apportionment Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616754

Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Pasta Place Ltd: ChD 1995

The demised premises were originally used by the tenant as a delicatessen. The landlord granted the tenant successive licences permitting the installation of eight tables for the consumption of food and non-alcoholic beverages, permitting the service of Italian wine for consumption with food and permitting the off-licence sale of beers, ciders and wine as well as the use of adjoining premises as a fire escape.
Held: Morland J rejected the argument that the grant of the licences amounted to forbearance by the lessor: ‘The next question is can the plaintiff rely upon the proviso to override the general law? In my judgment, on a proper construction of the proviso, they clearly cannot. The proviso . . does envisage a landlord having a wide discretion in dealing with a tenant, but, in my judgment, it is a wide discretion in dealing with a tenant who has broken his obligations under the lease. . The proviso, in my judgment, has to be construed in a way to give purpose to the object of the proviso which is . . to give a wide discretion to the lessor or landlord. On the other hand, the words of the proviso are clear, that they are designed for the situation where there is either a breach or an apprehended breach of covenant failure to pay the rent . . This case differs factually from the Selous case . . where there had been a breach of covenant in the erection of toilets. . . In the present case, the three licences were granted before the date the rent review was agreed. There was no question here of any breach of covenant, or the giving of time to remedy the breach.’

Judges:

Morland J

Citations:

[1995] 1 EGLR 79

Cited by:

Cited – Topland Portfolio No 1 Ltd v Smiths News Trading Ltd CA 21-Jan-2014
The claimant landlord sought to recover arrears of its tenant’s rent after the tenant’s insolvency from the defendant under the defendant’s guarantee of the rent. The defendant had argued successfully at first instance that the guarantee had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.523151

Case XXXVIII Mich 13 Jac B R Furrer v Snelling, Dyer, 55: 1220

Covenant for payment of rent of andpound;20 per annum, for four years and a half; and for non-payment of andpound;100 according to the said covenant, the action is brought: adjudged good, and affirmed in error: for in covenant damages only are to be recovered and this surplus in miscomputing shall be abated : it is otherwise in debt for rent, where more is demanded than is due; for in this case the debt demanded only, is to be recovered.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 761, (1220-1623) Jenk 324, (1220) 145 ER 235 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461673

2 Jac Cr 40, Earl of Rutland’s Case 1 Co 76 A B Curia Wardor’, Surrender, Tail, Fines, Discontinuance, Bar Baldwin’s Case: 1220

A tenant for life, remainder to B. in tail ; B. levies a fine, with proclamations, sur concessit, to A. and C. for their lives : this fine bars the intail during the said two lives only, and is not a discontinuance omnio : for B. was riot seised by force of the tail, and the fine is sur concessit : it seems that A.’s acceptance of this estate to him and C. is a surrender of the former estate which he had : as in the case of a lease for years made to A. and during the years, he accepts a lease for years of the same land to him and B.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 274, (1220-1623) Jenk 321, (1220) 145 ER 233 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461186

Case XIX. 26 H 8, 23 By The Judges of Both Benches 14 H 8, 3 Stat De Glocester, Cap 11 Resceit, Averment Hob 35: 1220

A quare impedit is brought against the patron and incumbent to present to a rectory, of which the incumbent has made a lease for years to B. by deed ; in this case the patron of the incumbent confesses the action: the lessee for years is not relievable ; although he comes before judgment and shews his lease, and shews the title of his lessor, and the fraud and collusion : for a parson incumbent may, when he will, resign his rectory, and avoid his lease; and the absence of a parson for the space of 80 days in a year shall avoid the said lease ; also if he will suffer a judgment and recovery of it against him, such recovery shall avoid the said lease. The statute of Glocester is to be understood of leases made by such lessors as could not defeat sruch leases by their own acts.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 356, (1220-1623) Jenk 200, (1220) 145 ER 135 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Ecclesiastical, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461268

Case LXXVII 43 El 2 Co 91 B, Bingham’s Case 13 Co 56 Uses, Leases, Done, Remainder: 1220

A. seised of land in fee, levies a fine of it to B. to the use of C. in tail, remainder to the right heirs of A. A. iri the life of C. makes a lease of this lad for 100 years ; C. dies without issue : this is a good lease against A. for this remainder is it reversion in A. for the use of the fee was not out of him, when the use to C. in tail was limited ; but remained in him, viz. in A. and is a reversion in A. and his heir in this case is not a purchaser, but shall have it by discent.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 538, (1220-1623) Jenk 266, (1220) 145 ER 191 (F)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461450

3 Co 78 A 41 Ass Pl 28: 1220

A. has right to recover in a formedon against B. tenant of the land, A. by covin with C. causes C. to disseise B. to the intent that C. should make default in a formedon against him, and that A, should recover by default ; A. recovers the land against C. accordingly by this covin, by default or confession ; A. enters, he is not remitted ; B. enters, and A. ousts him. Resolved by all the sages in parliament, that this covin makes A. a disseisor of his own land. Farmer’s case, 3 Co. 77. Coke has many cases to this effect.
Fraus and dolus nemini petrocinentur.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 378, (1220-1623) Jenk 46, (1220) 145 ER 35 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461290

Case LXV 44 Eliz Raym 149, 219 1 Vent 241, 2 2 Lev 52, 53 3 Co 77, Fermor’s Case Fines, Covin, Averment, Bar 2 Ander 176 1 Jones, 35, 211, 317 Winch, 116 Savil, 85, 88, 106, 107, 1 Leon 40: 1220

A. makes a lease for years of land in Dale to B rendering yearly rent; B has other lands of inheritance in Dale ; E leases to C. for life the said 1ands leased to him for years ; and afterwards B levies a fine with proclamations of all the said lands, which were his inheritance and of those which were leased to him for years ; (the number of acres in the fine amounted to the whole) B paid his rent yearly to A during the years ; the said fine was levied of all the said lands, with proc1amations ; and five years passed : A shall not be barred in this case ; for there is apparent covin in levying this fine.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 547, (1220-1623) Jenk 253, (1220) 145 ER 180 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461459

4 Jac Cr 117, Offley’s Case: 1220

A makes a lease of certain land for 21 years the 31 January, 26 Eliz. to begin from the feast of Christmas last passed, rendering certain rent at Christmas yearly, during the term, which lease ends at Christmas 2 Jac. 1. A by common recovery conveys the reversion to B before Christmas, 2 Jac. 1. B. brings debt for this rent, and does not shew in what action the recovery was had, and says that on the first of February, the 2 Jac he had the reversion ; which is not possible; for the lease had ended before, viz. at Christmas, the 2 Jac and the recovery is insufficiently pleaded : yet B in debt for this rent had judgment, affirmed in error. For B had the reversion wheri the rent was due at Christmas, and the said allegation of the reversion being in him on the first of Feb the 2d of James was surplusage : and although the recovery was erroneous, a stranger shall not take advantage of it. Res inter alios acta nemini nocet.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 509, (1220-1623) Jenk 322, (1220) 145 ER 234 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461421

10 Jac 9 Co 60, Bradshaw’s Case: 1220

A. makes a lease by indenture to B. for 31 years if C. so long lives ; C. is dead at the time ; this lease is absolute. A. covenants by this indenture with B. that he A, has full power to demise this land to B. as aforesaid ; in covenant brought by B, against A. UPON this, he need not shew how A had not full power : it is sufficient for him to declare generally that A. had not full power: for what power he had lies in the knowlegde of the covenant and not in the knowledge of the covenantee.
A. makes a lease to B. if C. lives for 31 years, and C. is dead at the time; this lease is void : for the condition is precedent. A lease for 31 years is made to A. to begin after a lease for 21 years made to C. shall determine ; whereas in truth no lease was made to C. this lease to A. shall begin immediately. The law requires truth and convenient certainty in counts and pleadings : this certainty ought to be shewn by him, who, in intendment of law, has the most certain knowledge of it.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 59, (1220-1623) Jenk 305, (1220) 145 ER 222 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460971

Re Boyer’s Settled Estates: 1916

A right to reside shared by two persons was recognized as a valid and effective right. Sargant J said: ‘I think that the effect of s58 is, broadly speaking, to give to the large class of persons comprised in the nine headings of subs(1) of s58 the powers of a tenant for life, although they are not strictly tenants for life by reason of their estates not being strictly estates for life. But, apart from that, I think that the persons who are dealt with under s58 are persons who fall within the general defining provisions of s2(5), under which in determining tenancy you have to regard beneficial title to possession’.

Judges:

Sargant J

Citations:

[1916] 2 Ch 404

Statutes:

Settled Land Act 1882 2(5) 58

Cited by:

Cited – Binions v Evans CA 27-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs had bought a cottage subjecty to a tenancy to the defendant. They sought possession saying that she held under a tenancy at will. It was a renancy for her life but described as a tenancy at will. The judge had held that the other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.450173

Brown v Draper: CA 1944

The husband tenant had left the matrimonial home after a quarrel leaving behind some of his furniture.
Held: The husband/tenant cannot put an end to the tenancy, even by such acts as delivering the keys to the landlord, so long as his wife remains on the premises: he remains there by her, and so long as he does so, whatever else he does or says, the tenancy remains. The only ways in which a tenant may lose the protection of the Rent Acts are (a) by giving up possession (in which case no order for recovery of possession against him was required) or (b) by having an order of possession made against him. In the case of a licensee of a tenant, the licensee cannot in her own right claim the protection of the Acts, and ‘That proposition is equally true of our Rent Restriction Act and what is stated about a licensee is applicable equally to a sub-tenant. But a sub-tenant car shelter behind the protection afforded to the tenant (his immediate landlord) is that protection has not ceased to exist.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1944] KB 309

Cited by:

Cited – Chaudhary v Yavuz CA 22-Nov-2011
The court was asked ‘whether and if so how an easement arising informally and not protected by any entry at the Land Registry can be effective against a purchaser of the land over which the easement would be exercised.’ The parties respectively . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.450174

John Aldridge, Robert And Nicholas Aldridge, And Mary Keat Widow v Edward Duke, George Duke, Nicholas Aldridge, John Dean, And Avisia Duke: 1679

A subsequent Lease made to on by way of Mortgage, who had Notice of a prior Lease made for raising Children’s Portion, was set aside

Citations:

[1679] EngR 30, (1679) Fin H 439, (1679) 23 ER 239 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.402674

Morelle Ltd v Waterworth: CA 1955

The court was asked (1) Was the assurance to the Plaintiff Company of the unexpired residue of a term of years in house property in London an assurance of land in mortmain within the terms of section 1 of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888? (2) If so, was the term so assured automatically forfeited to the Crown by virtue of the same subsection?
Held: Both questions were answered affirmatively.

Citations:

[1955] 1 QB 1

Statutes:

Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888

Cited by:

Per incuriam – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Charity

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.272569

Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council: ChD 1 Apr 1999

It might be correct for a landlord to refuse consent to assignment where its objection to the proposed user was that it was generally undesirable, and there need be shown no necessary implication that the use would not be allowed by the lease.

Citations:

Times 01-Apr-1999

Citing:

See Also – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 20-Jan-1997
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ashworth Frazer Ltd v Gloucester City Council CA 3-Feb-2000
A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after . .
At First Instance – Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council HL 8-Nov-2001
A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77902

Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc v Homebase Ltd: ChD 26 Apr 2001

The defendant took a lease of substantial property, subject to a covenant not to sublet without the landlord’s consent, such consent not to be withheld unreasonably, and which covenant was made subject to additional conditions. The defendants ceased to operate and sought to sublet. They eventually found a possible sub-tenant, and sought the landlord’s licence. The court held that each of the additional provisos must be complied with before the reasonableness of the proposed sub-letting was to be assessed, and it was for the tenant to demonstrate that compliance. Promises made by the tenant to the proposed sub-tenant did not invalidate the fulfillment of the conditions by the sub-tenant, particularly in the light of the difficulties in finding a new tenant. However the arrangements did not achieve the requirement to align the terms of the rent reviews in the sub-tenancy with those in the head tenancy.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77756

Edge v Strafford: CExc 1831

The case of Ryley v Hicks was not overruled by Inman v Stamp. Rylet stood as good authority that ‘a lease, though it were to commence in futuro, would be within the exception in the statute of frauds, if it did not exceed three years from the making.’

Judges:

Bayley B

Citations:

(1831) 1 Cr and J 391

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Ryley v Hicks 1725
A lease by parol for less than three years from the making of it and stated to take effect at a future day are not within the Statute of Frauds: ‘In Middlesex, coram Raymond, Chief Justice.
Leases by parol for less than three years from the . .
Cited – Inman v Stamp 1815
. .

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: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.263778

Plough Investments Ltd v Manchester City Council: 1989

Citations:

[1989] EGLR 244

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.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.263796

Ahearn v Bellman; Sedgewick v Ahearn: 1879

The defendant held a tenancy of a shop from year to year. The landlord gave him a notice giving a valid date for termination, but continued with a term providing a different rent if the tenant stayed in possession.
Held: The later words did not invalidate the earlier effective notice. A notice to quit which is optional is not a notice to quit.

Judges:

Bramwell LJ

Citations:

(1879) 4 Ex D 201

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.245890

Cadogan v McCarthy and Stone Developments Ltd: 1996

Citations:

[1996] EGCS 94

Cited by:

Cited – Gatwick Parking Service Ltd v Sargent CA 3-Feb-2000
When a landlord opposed a renewal of a business tenancy, the court must allow for changes in planning policy which affected the parties. Planning permission had originally been subject to a condition that it be used not by the claimant but by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229224

Brown v Gould: 1972

A lease of business premises contained an option to renew the lease and provided for any such new lease: ‘to be for a further term of 21 years at a rent to be fixed having regard to the market value of the premises at the time of exercising this option taking into account to the advantage of the tenant any increased value of such premises attributable to structural improvements made by the tenant.’ Where an option was expressed to be exercisable at a price to be determined according to some stated formula, without any effective machinery being in terms provided for working out that formula, the Court had jurisdiction to determine it. The Court was reluctant to hold void for uncertainty any provision that was intended to have legal effect, and where it was accepted that the option was intended to have business efficacy.
Megarry J said: ‘No doubt there may be cases in which the draftsman’s ineptitude will succeed in defeating the court’s efforts to find a meaning for the provision in question; but only if the court is driven to it will it be held that a provision is void for uncertainty’.

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1972] Ch 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Leeds Rugby Ltd v Harris and Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited QBD 20-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages from the defendants saying that the second defendant had induced a breach of contract by the first when he left to play rugby for the second defendant.
Held: The contract could not be said to be void as an agreement . .
Cited – Westvilla Properties Ltd v Dow Properties Ltd ChD 15-Jan-2010
The owner sought specific performance of its contract to sell land to the defendant. The land was subject to a proposed lease which the defendant had concluded was uncertain and unattractive, and claimed to have rescinded the contract.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229005

Accountancy Personnel Ltd v Salters’ Company: CA 1972

The landlord opposed the grant of a new tenancy on redevelopment grounds. The judge found that the landlord had not established the requisite intention at the hearing date, but held that the intention would be established six months later. He made a declaration to that effect under section 31 (2) of the Act, which had the effect of terminating the tenant’s tenancy on that date. The tenant appealed. By the date of the hearing the landlord’s plans had been delayed.
Held: The Court of Appeal could take into account the evidence of delay and extended the termination date by a further three months

Citations:

[1972] EGD 461

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f) 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dogan v Semali Investments Ltd CA 4-Aug-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229223

Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd: ChD 1975

The court considered the doctrine that a tenant acquiring title to land by adverse possession, did so on behalf of hs landlord.
Held: The cases demonstrated that ‘the law . . has got into something of a tangle’, but the doctrine, at least as summarised by Parke B, appeared to be ‘in accordance with justice and common sense’. If a tenant occupies land belonging to the landlord but not included in the demise, that land is presumed to be an addition to the land demised to the tenant, so that it becomes subject to the terms of the tenancy and must therefore be given up to the landlord when the tenancy ends. For there to be a surrender of an existing lease by operation of law because of the grant of a new lease,

Judges:

Pennycuick V-C

Citations:

[1975] Ch 321, [1975] 1 All ER 690

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kingsmill v Millard 20-Jun-1855
Parke B set out the doctrine that a tenant acquiring adjoining land by adverse possession acquires it on behalf of his landlord: ‘It is laid down in all the cases – whether the inclosed land is part of the waste, or belongs to the landlord or a . .
Approved – Tabor v Godfrey 1895
Where a tenant occupies land adjacent to land demised to him by the landlord, he occupies it as additional to the tenancy, and subject to its terms. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Appeal from – Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd CA 2-Jan-1975
Judgment upheld . .
Cited – Trustees In the Charity of Sir John Morden v Mayrick; Graham v Mayrick CA 12-Jan-2007
The claimant had owned tracts of land in London for very many years, but the title deeds had been lost. The defendant had purchased a part from a company who had in turn purchased from the claimants, but the parties disputed an adjacent strip of . .
Cited – Graham and others v Mayrick ChD 23-Mar-2006
The claimants sought specific performance of a compromise agreement with the defendant after a dispute over a strip of land. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimants had shown satisfactory title.
Held: ‘It has long been established . .
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.

Land, Limitation, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228931

Kingsmill v Millard: 20 Jun 1855

Parke B set out the doctrine that a tenant acquiring adjoining land by adverse possession acquires it on behalf of his landlord: ‘It is laid down in all the cases – whether the inclosed land is part of the waste, or belongs to the landlord or a third person – that the presumption is, that the tenant has inclosed it for the benefit of his landlord unless he has done some act disclaiming the landlord’s title. . . The encroachment must be considered as annexed to the holding, unless it clearly appears that the tenant made it for his own benefit.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

(1855) 11 Exch 313, (1855) 19 JP 661, (1855) 3 CLR 1022, 156 ER 849, [1855] EngR 616, (1855) 156 ER 849

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd ChD 1975
The court considered the doctrine that a tenant acquiring title to land by adverse possession, did so on behalf of hs landlord.
Held: The cases demonstrated that ‘the law . . has got into something of a tangle’, but the doctrine, at least as . .
Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Cited – Childs and Another v Vernon CA 16-Mar-2007
The parties disputed the boundary between their properties, alleging various trespasses. The judge ordered a single expert witness. The court had been unable to establish the line of the boundary from the conveyances or the Land Registry plans. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228930

Hutchins v Chambers: 1758

Distress under the Poor Relief Act 1601 and other like Acts is only partly analogous to common law distress but is much more analogous to common execution; such distress was described as in the nature of an execution.

Citations:

(1758) 1 Burr 579

Statutes:

Poor Relief Act 1601

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brenner v Revenue and Customs; In re Modern Jet Support Centre Ltd ChD 21-Jul-2005
The court was asked whether the process of distraint against goods for unpaid tax under section 61 of the 1970 Act is an ‘execution’ within section 183 of the 1986 Act which applies where a creditor has issued, but not completed, execution against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228987

Belaney v Belaney: 1867

The testator bought the residue of a 99 year lease and took an assignment of the term. In the following year he bought the freehold reversion and, by a deed which recited that he was desirous that the term should not merge in the freehold, the reversion was conveyed to a trustee for him. He afterwards made a will bequeathing his personal estate.
Held: The reversion did not pass, but the term did: ‘It is most important to observe, that in the conveyance of the reversion, taken by the testator within a year after the assignment of the term to him, it is stated that the conveyance is taken to a trustee for the express purpose of preventing merger. The term, therefore, remained in the testator as personal estate’

Judges:

Lord Chelmsford

Citations:

(1867) 2 Ch.App138

Cited by:

Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223769

Lambert v FW Woolworth and Co Ltd: CA 1938

The court considered the reasonableness of the withholding of consent under the Act: ‘the landlords have unconditionally withheld their consent and made no condition as to payment of any compensation in respect of damage to or diminution in the value of the premises. Having so failed, they have abstained from claiming the benefit of sub-s. 2, which expressly preserves this right to them, nor in my view can they now be heard to say, as evidence of reasonableness, that the premises have suffered damage or any diminution in value and the tenant has not offered to compensate them. Prima facie, the proviso says that they shall not unreasonably withhold their licence or consent, but gives to them expressly a right to claim the payment of a reasonable sum in respect of damage or diminution in value. This they have not claimed; and I think therefore that they must seek for some other grounds of reasonableness for their refusal than those of damage or diminution in value to meet the case of the tenant against them.’

Judges:

Slesser LJ, McKinnon L.J

Citations:

[1938] Ch 883

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 19(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Houlder Brothers and Co Ltd v Gibbs CA 1925
The landlord owned two adjoining commercial properties. The tenant of one proposed to assign the lease to the tenant of the adjoining property. The landlord refused consent on the ground that if the assignment went ahead, it was likely that 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.199279

26 E.3. 76 [recte 26 E.3. 22]: 1352

In a writ of waste brought against a tenant in dower the count was that she held in dower of his inheritance and that she had committed waste in the manor of W. and he assigned the waste.
Birton. He does not show how we hold of his inheritance, whether as heir to our husband or as strange purchasor or by whose assignment we hold; so judgment of his writ etc.
Muttelowe. Our writ is general and we can have no other writ in the chancery and so etc.
So she was put to answer further.
Birton. Whereas he alleges that we hold the whole of the manor in dower we hold only one third of the manor; judgment of the writ.
Muttelowe. Whether you hold only one third or more you have committed waste in what you hold and you do not answer on that; judgment etc.
Birton. As to all he alleges as waste other than in respect of a sheepshed, no waste committed, as we are ready etc. As to this sheepshed it was ruinous when our dower was assigned and so collapsed and we have erected a new sheepshed with our own timber; judgment etc.
Muttelowe. In respect of that: that you have committed waste as we have suggested by our writ, as we are ready to prove etc.
STOWFORD, J. She has alleged a matter on which you may demur for judgment if you wish; but you will not get to a general averment on what she has said. So answer what she has said.
Muttelowe. She has committed waste as we alleged and has not erected a new building as she has said, as we are ready etc.

Citations:

[1352] [Co. Litt. 53a (g)]

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196932

5 E.4 89: 1465

A writ of waste was brought and declaration made that the waste had been committed in a messuage, namely in one hall and assigned the waste in a chamber etc. and in a kitchen and assigned the waste in allowing the kitchen to fall down because he did not put piers under the walls of the kitchen called the ‘grunsel’ etc. Judgment was asked of the count as this could not be waste to allow the ‘grunsels’ of a building to waste, for the tenant, namely the termor or lessee, is not obliged to have this thing repaired any more than the timber of the messuage because if he keep the buildings roofed so that the timber does not waste because of lack of this nor the grunsels of the building nor the timber of the walls the tenant does enough on his part because he is not obliged to repair the timber of the house nor of the ‘grunsels’ which is the basic structure of the building as much as the posts and the timber of the building. But repairs of this sort belong solely, as it seems, to the lessor, the lord, and not to the tenant and thus it seems that this previously mentioned is not waste in the tenant etc. According to some of the court it seemed to the contrary for if the tenant allow the ‘grunsels’ to waste and by his failure to protect or to remove water which flows or runs onto this or earth or dung or other nuisance which lies or rests on it the tenant will be charged with this as much as if he broke the ‘grunsels’ and caused the building to fall down because the tenant is at least obliged to ensure that which is leased to him is in as good a condition as it was when it was leased to him. So in the case here if the plaintiff had declared that he leased this kitchen to him well-roofed and with good ‘grunsels’ and good walls and all in good condition and then the tenant allowed the ‘grunsels’ to waste and rot and so the building fell down then the tenant, as it seems, will be charged with waste as a result of his own folly. Likewise here because by this declaration it will be taken by common understanding that the kitchen was prima facie sufficient and was good throughout, that is, in good repair above and below etc. and so then by his sufferance, he declared further, he suffered the ‘grunsels’ to be wasted and that cannot be taken otherwise than that everything was fine at first and now by his sufferance was otherwise and a tenant will be put by the law at least to repair it because he leased it to him to be left in as good a condition every time and thus to repair and look after it in at least as good a condition as he found it; and otherwise he is chargeable with waste etc.
Littleton. This matter goes to our action in this respect.
Catesby. I was taught that this is an exception to the count and by this the whole count is abatable.
CHOKE, J. If this is or is not adjudged waste, whichever one, that will only affect the action in this respect, for if it is not adjudged waste the plaintiff will not be barred by this except from this part of his claim and the remainder will still stand etc.
And because the better opinion of the court was that the count was good the defendant passed over and pleaded no waste.

Citations:

[1465] [Viner 446 no 9]

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196738

12 H.4.5: 1410

(Year Books) The abbot of Sherborne brought a writ of waste against two husbands and their wives and when the grand distress was returned one husband and wife defaulted and the other husband and wife appeared.
Skrene . . if I lease buildings for a term of years and they are unroofed by a sudden accident I will have no action of waste for that.
HULL, J. What you say is not law because although initially it will not be adjudged waste committed by him but by act of God if he allows the building to remain without a roof and so the timber is damaged he is answerable for that waste because that is his default and by law he is obliged to roof the building.
Skrene. If the whole building is blown down by a sudden wind I am not obliged to rebuild it.
HULL, J. I concede that but where the timbers are standing, which are the substance of the building, and decay for lack of roofing, that is obviously waste.
Hull J. (sitting with Thirning, C.J. and Hankford, J.) thus expressed the view (to which there was no reported dissent) arguendo that a tenant for years is liable if through his default he fails to keep the building in repair.

Citations:

[1410] [Co. Litt. 53a (g)]

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196735

Harmond Properties Ltd v Gajdzis: CA 1968

The County Court decided that a notice to quit given to a tenant by a director of the landlord company in his own name was valid.
Held: The decision was correct. The director had carried out the letting and acted as if he were the landlord in every way. He was held to have been the general agent of the landlord.

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1858

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA 9-Jun-1997
Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Agency

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.188164

Morrow v Nadeem: 1981

In a notice served pursuant to s25 of the 1954 Act the landlord was described as the individual who was effectively the sole shareholder and director of landlord company, rather than the landlord company itself.
Held: The landlord’s notice was invalid. It was a form preescribed by the rules requiring the correct identification of the landlord. The court considered also the effect of the omission to inform a proposed lessee about what would happen on a reference to a rent assessment committee on the substitution of council tax for poll tax. It would be a source of confusion rather than an evident error.

Judges:

Nicholls LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1381

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25, Landlord & Tenant (Notices) Regulations 1957 (SI 1957/1157),

Cited by:

Cited – Andrews and Another v Brewer and Another CA 17-Feb-1997
Tenants challenged an order for possession, saying the form of notice was defective. The date specified in the notice was clearly a clerical error. It provided that the tenancy would commence on 29 May 1993 and end on 28 May 1993, on the face of it, . .
Cited – Pearson v Alyo CA 1990
Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act. . .
Cited – Lay and others v Ackerman and Another CA 4-Mar-2004
Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187736

Hildebrand v Lewis: CA 1941

B had granted to L a sublease of premises where the rent was payable quarterly in advance. He fell into arrears with his rent and the landlord served on L a notice under the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 section 6 with the result that L became became liable to pay to B’s landlords the rent payable under the sublease period. In September 1940 the premises were damaged by enemy action and L gave to B a notice of disclaimer under the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act 1939 section 4. B did not give L a notice to avoid disclaimer under section 11 of the Act but B’s landlords purported to do so. They also began an action against L claiming the rent due in respect of the premises for the quarter beginning September 1940. L paid 22 pounds into court alleging that no rent was payable after October
Held: 1) B and not his landlords was the landlord of L within the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act 1939 section 24 and therefore the pretended notice to avoid disclaimer served on L by his landlords was not a good notice and L’s notice of disclaimer was wholly unaffected thereby; 2) There being no provision in section 8 of the 1939 Act dealing with apportionment of rent in the event of a notice of of disclaimer being given L was liable to B’s landlords for the whole of the quarters rent payable in advance in September and not merely for the rent payable down to the date on which he said his notice of disclaimer on B.
The Court citing Ellis in support, described it as ‘well settled that where rent is payable in advance the Apportionment Act does not apply’.

Citations:

[1941] 2 KB 135, [1941] 2 All ER 584, 110 LJKB 570, 165 LT 178, 57 TLR 607

Statutes:

Apportionment Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ellis v Rowbotham CA 1900
The plaintiff had let and the defendant had taken a tenancy of premises at a rent payable quarterly in advance. The tenancy agreement had provided that if rent should be in arrears for 14 days the plaintiff could regain possession by re-entry. A . .

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.616753

In re Smith and Hartogs: 1895

A landlord agreed to a reduction of the rent payable for the time being, with the balance in effect being added to the rent payable later in the term. The tenant failed to pay the reduced rent.
Held: The landlord was entitled to distrain for the full amount of the rent.
Vaughan Williams J said: ‘To put the case in the manner most favourable to the trustee [i.e. the tenants’ trustee in bankruptcy]; Here was an agreement that if the tenant paid the rent agreed upon by instalments, the landlord would not enforce his original remedy. Treating the agreement as being one for good consideration, it cannot be enforced by the tenant if he was in default . . ‘

Citations:

(1895) 72 LT 221

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605852

Shackell v Chorlton: 1895

Citations:

[1895] 1 Ch 378

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

No Longer Good law – Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd ChD 7-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether rents under leases held by the company had become expenses in the administration. . .
Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Cited – Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc (No 2) ChD 1990
The company had been in the business of leasing computers. In administration, the administrators wanted to continue collection of the rents. The court was asked how the company’s liabilities to head lessors and hirers should be dealt with. Some of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.605855

Lovely and Orchard Services v Daejan Investments (Grove Hall) Ltd: QBD 1977

When a court sets a new rent on an application for a new lease under the 1954 Act, the valuation date is, in practice, the date upon which it sets the new rent, taking effect from the date when the new lease is to be executed, although striclty according to the words of the section, it was the date upon which the new lease term would commence. A court might therefore take into account any properly forseeable changes which might take place between the date of the hearing and the commencement date for the new term.
The defendant had here argued that the proposals set out in the pleadings constituted an offer capable of acceptance by the defendant tenant.

Citations:

(1977) 246 EG 651, (1977) 121 SJ 711, [1978] 1 EGLR 44

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.604814

Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar: CA 1972

A lessee made a claim to acquire the freehold of his house under the 1967 Act. The making of such a claim prevented the landlord from forfeiting the lease unless lessee had not made his claim in good faith.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘To my mind, under this statute a claim is made ‘in good faith’ when it is made honestly and with no ulterior motive. It must be made by the tenant honestly in the belief that he has a lawful right to acquire the freehold or an extended lease, and it must be made without any ulterior motive, such as to avoid the just consequences of his own misdeeds or failures.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 48

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – 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 . .
Cited – Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others ChD 16-Oct-2009
The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.551034

Phelps v City of London Corporation: 1916

Peterson J said it was ‘at least doubtful’ whether a nuisance by noise was a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.

Judges:

Peterson J

Citations:

[1916] 2 Ch 255

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.442748

William Clun’s Case: 1613

If a lease under which the rent is payable in arrear was forfeited or came to an end prematurely for some other reason, the landlord loses the right to recover the rent due on the rent day following that determination

Citations:

[1572] EngR 481, (1572-1616) 10 Co Rep 127, (1572) 77 ER 1117, (1613) 10 Co Rep 127a

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.432447

Anne Stephens, Widow And Administratrix of William Stephens Esq v John Langley, And Thomasin His Wife, And Jane Castleton: 1673

Bill by the Administratrix of the Lessee against the Administratrix of the Lessor, to be relieved for what she had paid to the said Administratrix, whose Administration was afterwards repealed and granted to another, who sued for the said Rent, and had obtained a Verdict and Judgment against the Administratrix of the Lessee for the same, the Plaintiff was relieved, for that it was paid to the Defendant, who
was then the visible Administratrix.

Citations:

[1673] EngR 7, (1673) Fin H 40, (1673) 23 ER 22 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.406189

Wallis Fashion Group Ltd v CGU Life Insurance: ChD 2001

Neuberger J said that the 1995 Act: ‘represents a sea change in the law relating to a tenant’s liability after he assigns the lease’.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

(2001) PandCR 28

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Good Harvest Partnership Llp v Centaur Services Ltd ChD 23-Feb-2010
The court considered whether the 1995 Act operated to prevent a guarantor of a lessee being required to provide a similar guarantor for an assignee. The tenant had created a sub-lease, and the lease required its guarantor to provide a similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.401964

Handel v The City of London Brewery: 1901

Citations:

[1901] Ch D 496

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swayne and Co (A Firm) CA 26-Aug-1998
The parties entered into a regulated copier finance agreement. The defendant defaulted. The plaintiffs served a notice to determine the agreement, but providing what sum was to be paid to continue. The defendant said that the notice specified the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.349084

Stacey v Hill: CA 1901

The surety for performance of the tenant’s covenants under the lease which was ‘to remain in force concurrently with the lease for a period of five years’ was discharged by the disclaimer of the lease by the insolvent tenant’s liquidator. The lease was determined from the date of the disclaimer. The surety liability was also determined and that the action on the guarantee was not maintainable.

Citations:

[1901] 1 KB 660

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – Hindcastle Ltd v Barbara Attenborough Associates Ltd and Others HL 22-Feb-1996
The guarantor of an original tenant under the lease remains liable after the disclaimer the lease on insolvency. The disclaimer operates to determine the lease altogether with the result that the landlord’s reversion is accelerated. ‘In order to . .
Cited – Shaw v Doleman CA 1-Apr-2009
The landlord had taken a guarantee of the lease from the tenant when granting a licence to assign to the new tenant. That new tenant had become insolvent and the liquidator had disclaimed the lease. The court considered the position under Hindcastle . .
Cited – Basch v Stekel and Another CA 25-Jul-2000
The deceased had given a guarantee of the tenant’s covenant given by his company under a lease. The court was asked whether the obligations under the guarantee survived his death after he company was wound up.
Held: Chadwick LJ explained the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.341218

Little v Courage Ltd: ChD 19 Jan 1994

The pub tenant had an option to renew his lease, subject to agreeing with the brewer a business plan and agreement. He notified the landlord that he wished to renew but the landlord did not himself present any plan and agreement, or obtain one, but instead declined to grant a new lease on the grounds that no new plan or agreement had been entered into.
Held: A condition precedent for a plan which was unfulfilled defeated a right to a new lease.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Little v Courage Ltd CA 6-Jan-1995
The tenancy contained an option for the tenant to renew, subject to agreement being reached with the brewer on a business plan. The tenant said he wished to renew, but the brewer did not present a business plan or agreement, and then the landlord . .
Cited – Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.83094

Liverpool City Council v Irwin: CA 1976

The court considered the nature and extent of the obligations of landlords of a building in multiple occupation to repair essential means of access.
Held: Lord Denning MR (dissenting) suggested that the court had power to imply a term if it was reasonable so to do, and held that the landlords were under an implied obligation to repair accordingly. Roskill and Ormrod LJJ held to the contrary. Roskill LJ said: ‘But I am afraid, with profound respect, I cannot agree with his view that it is open to us in this court at the present day to imply a term because subjectively or objectively we as individual judges think it will be reasonable so to do. It must be necessary, in order to make the contract work as well as reasonable so to do, before the court can write into a contract, as a matter of implication, some term which the parties have themselves, assumedly deliberately, omitted to do.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Roskill and Ormrod LJJ

Citations:

[1976] QB 319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At CA – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.259562

Smith v Howell: 1851

A lease had been granted to G, who assigned the term to the Plaintiff, who later assigned on to the Defendant. The assignees each covenanted to perform the obligations under the lease, and to indemnify the assignor. Rent not being duly paid, and the premises being out of repair, the freeholder sued G for the rent, and got judgment by default for the rent and for damages for the want of repair. G paid these amounts and then sued the Plaintiff for the amount so paid and his costs. The Plaintiff defended that action unsuccessfully, and became liable to pay the sum claimed and G’s costs. Not yet having paid, he sued the Defendant in turn.
Held: The Plaintiff was not entitled to recover his costs of resisting G’s action, because such resistance was unreasonable and unnecessary, but he was entitled to the rent and damages payable to G, and the costs of the freeholder’s action against G.
The rent and damages and the costs of the freeholder’s action against G were ‘properly incurred for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the Defendant’s liability’ (including quantifying the liability for the want of repair) but that all costs thereafter were unnecessary and superfluous and could not be recovered. Pollock CB: ‘There is no doubt that, at one time, very wild notions were entertained with respect to the contract of indemnity; but these notions are now exploded, and it is considered, that, by a contract of indemnity, is meant that the party indemnified may recover all such charges as necessarily and reasonably arise out of the circumstances under which the party charged became responsible.’ and ‘As I have stated, it seems that under the contract of indemnity the party is entitled to recover those costs only which have been fairly and reasonably incurred.’

Judges:

Pollock CB

Citations:

(1851) 6 Exch 730

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.249878

Salford Van Hire (Contracts) Ltd v Bocholt Developments Ltd: CA 11 May 1995

A distraint made against a vehicle on hire to the tenant was invalid, and the Landlord was liable. The modern day prevalence of the practice of leasing may be enough notice that a vehicle may be on hire to a tenant.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-1995, Ind Summary 12-Jun-1995

Statutes:

Law of Distress (Amendment) Act 1908 4(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.88987

Escalus Properties Ltd v Robinson and Others; Same v Dennis and Others Etc: CA 11 May 1995

Mortgagee is entitled to relief against forfeiture retrospectively. Sub-tenants and mortgagees can also apply for relief under s 146(2).

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-1995, [1996] QB 231

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 146(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.80364

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 per week: and JB doth hereby agree to quit and deliver up the cottage into the hands of the parish officers at any time on one month’s notice from the churchwardens and overseers for the time being, or one of them, or by their order . . The rent, as above stated, to commence from the date hereof, Witness’ etc. The entry was signed by the overseer and by the defendant. The tenant occupied the property for 21 years, but paid no rent. He was then given a notice to quit, but stayed a further five years paying no rent and then selling the cottage. The circumstances were known to the parish officers thhroughout the period.
Held: If the officres as lessors were enitled to maintain an action, a notice to quit was unnecessary because the defendant had disclaimed. The document was for a sufficiently determinate period to constitute a lease. Being for less than three years it could be granted without writing only if all the parish officers concurred.

Citations:

(1851) 17 QB 589, 21 LJQB 57, 18 LTOS 135, 15 JP 816, 16 Jur 100, 117 ER 1406

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223187

Living Waters Christian Centres Ltd v Fetherstonehaugh: ComC 26 Sep 1997

Rent review. Whether misconduct by reason of the admission of hearsay evidence and evidence not proved by affidavit in non-compliance with previous procedural directions. Circumstances in which evidence of comparable inadmissible as hearsay. Distinction between weight and admissibility.

Judges:

Colmore J

Citations:

Unreported, 26 Sep 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220797

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 obliterate the conceptual target by using a number of words or phrases expressing more or less the same idea. I cannot therefore rely upon the language alone but must, as it seems to me, construe the words also by reference to the commercial effect which would be produced by one construction or the other.’

Judges:

Hoffmann J

Citations:

[1990] 1 EGLR 150

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – GLN (Copenhagen) Southern Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council CA 27-Aug-2004
Neighbouring plots included covenants to use and not to use the land as cinemas. A proposed development would have used the land which had to be so used as an access for the new cinema proposed. The claimant sought to rely upon the Act to enforce a . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220499

Re Hennessey: 1975

A long lease at a premium and a low rent comprised three rooms at the top of a building. Clause 7 provided that the landlord should be entitled to buy the residue of the lease for andpound;2,500 if either the tenant gave notice to the landlord that he wished to vacate the premises or the landlord gave notice to the tenant that he wished to sell the building with vacant possession. It was contended that the proviso to s.17 applied to an agreement to surrender in the future as it applied to a present surrender.
Held: The request was dismissed. Joseph was analogous and any other conclusion would drive a coach and horses through the Act. Clause 7 to be void.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Plowman V-C

Citations:

[1975] 1 Ch 252

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Joseph v Joseph CA 1967
The words in section 38(1) ‘purports to’ means ‘has the effect that’ so that an agreement to give up possession in two years when the lease would still have six years to run infringed section 38 as it would preclude an application or request for a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Tiffany Investments Ltd and Another v Bircham and Co Nominees (No 2) Limited and others CA 4-Dec-2003
The tenancy was a long lease at a low rent under the 1954 Act, and so had continuing protection under the 1977 Act whilst occupied by the original tenant. The lease was assigned and registered. It had been conditional upon an application to purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192033

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Low Profile Fashions Ltd: CA 1952

The landlord claimed for arrears of rent. The tenancy had been assigned quickly three times. The tenant argued that the landlord should be restrained from pursuing a remedy against the original tenant when, with the new alternative remedies against the second assignee and the surety, it was wholly unreasonable to pursue the original tenant.
Held: The tenant’s defence confused remedies available in cumulative and alternative fashions.

Judges:

Beldam LJ

Citations:

[1952] 21 EG 104

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant CA 20-Dec-2006
The respondent had taken a tenancy of premises from the local authority. The ground floor was for use as a shop, and the first was residential. He had previously taken a licence and had refurbished the premises. The authority sold the freehold to . .
Cited – Reichman and Another v Beveridge CA 13-Dec-2006
The defendants were tenants of the claimant. They vacated the premises and stopped paying the rent. The claimant sought payment of the arrears of rent. The defendants said that the claimants should have taken steps to reduce their damages by seeking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190047

Tadema Holdings Ltd v Ferguson: CA 25 Nov 1999

A notice to increase rent could properly be served on a tenant even though he lacked mental capacity. Service of a notice must retain its natural meaning. A notice could properly be given where the landlord was named, and his address given ‘c/o the agent’ provided that address gave sufficient opportunity to contact the landlord.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988 ,13(2), Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1997 No 194

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89688

Rogers v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 10 Nov 1999

A local authority landlord had obtained a possession order against the tenant, for arrears of rent, but allowed the tenant to continue in possession, and eventually agreed to the order for possession being revoked. At that time the tenant became a statutory tenant, and was deemed to have been so for the intervening period. The tenant then had standing to claim damages for the landlords failure to repair in that period.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999, (1999) 32 HLR 361

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88847

Regina v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Ex Parte Daejan Properties Ltd: QBD 20 Oct 2000

Tenants under long leases sought to recover service charges which had been paid over many years, but which they had come to consider unreasonable. The landlords resisted the claim for repayment saying the Tribunal had no power to make an order when the charges had been paid. The tribunal also said that a limitation period of twelve years applied. On appeal the court said that the intention of the Act had been to widen the scope for such claims, and it would be unhelpful and unjustified to restrict the word ‘payable’ to future payments. It was not for the Tribunal to consider the limitation question.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Oct-2000, Times 20-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Housing Act 1985, Housing Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87210

Nutt and Another v Read and Another: CA 3 Nov 1999

The parties had contracted for the letting of land and transfer as in personam of a chalet erected upon it. The parties having completed the deals could not then agree what was to have been paid.
Held: The first agreement was void for common mistake and that the second should be set aside or rescinded in equity. They had both acted in ignorance of the chalet having become part of the land, and that though a statutory tenancy had come into being, it was right to unravel the arrangement even after some considerable time and after improvements.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Thorpe and Morritt LJJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Nov-1999, Gazette 03-Dec-1999, (1999) 32 HLR 716

Statutes:

Housieng Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Islington v Uckac and Another CA 30-Mar-2006
The council’s tenant had unlawfully secured assignment of a secure tenancy to the defendant. The council sought possession.
Held: A secure tenancy granted by an authority pursuant to a misrepresentation by the tenant is nonetheless valid. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84392

Jones v Waveney District Council: CA 17 Dec 1999

Where a local authority, having paid housing benefit in excess to a landlord, sought to recover that excess from him, it could not do so otherwise than in accordance with the regulations which provided for this. It was not open to the authority to deduct any overpayment from later payments, and if it did so, the landlord had the standing to reclaim the deducted amounts as a debt. Such a claim was not subject only to judicial review of the authority’s actions as part of public law.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1971)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Benefits, Landlord and Tenant, Local Government

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82620

Grammer v Lane and Others: CA 2 Dec 1999

A partnership involving the plaintiff took a tenancy of agricutural land. The plaintiff then said that the tenency had been extended to other land. The successor to the freehold denied that extension, but served a rent demand and for repairs both ‘without prejudice’ to the question of the existence of the tenancy. Matters were referred to the arbitrator.
Held: Where there was a dispute as to the existence of an agricultural tenancy, a party could nevertheless make use of notices and procedures for the protection of the tenancy on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. Where there were statutory arbitration proceedings also, the arbitrator had the choice of delaying those proceedings pending resolution of the issues as to the existence of the tenancy, of stating a case for the county court, or declining jurisdiction.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Mance LJ, Wilson J

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Zerek 1951
A rent tribunal could not give itself jurisdiction over an unfurnished letting. Devlin J said: ‘While they will not allow every empty threat to their jurisdiction to deter them from their proper business of fixing reasonable rents, they will . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant, Arbitration

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80966

Durley House Ltd v Cadogan and Another: ChD 27 Oct 1999

Rent reviews were to be at a percentage of the freehold value. Tenants improvements were to be disregarded for this purpose. The tenant sub-contracted the management of the flats to a third party who carried out substantial improvements. It was held that the improvements though not strictly carried out by the tenant, though this might not extend to improvements carried out by sub-tenants. A tenant who could demonstrate some direct involvement in the arrangements for the making of improvements to a property could be entitled to compensation on having to vacate the property, even though they had not directly carried out the works themselves. This could be in various ways, including the supervision of the works or the financing of them.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 12-Nov-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34 (2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80184

Daejan Properties Ltd v Bloom: CA 13 Jul 2000

An underlessee covenanted to pay a reasonable proportion of the cost of repairing walls and ‘other conveniences’ A slab and asphalt membrane had been laid which led to an ingress of water. The under lease clearly anticipated a wide liability in respect of all items of repair. The word ‘conveniences’ had been intended to operate as a catch-all, and the under-tenant must contribute.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jul-2000, Gazette 27-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79777