Tag: Landlord and Tenant

Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Label Ink Ltd: ChD 2001

An industrial warehouse was let for a term of 15 years. A clause contained an option for the tenant to break the lease on one year’s written notice on condition that: ‘There shall not be any material breach of the covenants on its part herein contained.’ but ‘Without prejudice to any remedy available to the landlord in respect of any breach of covenant on the part of the tenant or the conditions herein contained.’ It was common ground that a breach could not be material if it was not a subsisting breach on the termination date.
Held: The authorities established: ‘In qualifying clause 7.8 that the breach must be material, it is clearly intended to mitigate that rule as an otherwise trifling breach would disqualify the tenant from exercising the option even though the court might be slow to find such a breach, where it would be unfair to do so.
The intention must be to modify that rule to an extent that is reasonably fair to both landlord and tenant. The tenant is given by clause 7.8 the right to break, providing he complies with his covenants to the extent of avoiding any material breach. In my judgment, in that context, the breach is material if, but only if, having regard to all the circumstances, and to the proper efforts of the tenant to comply with his covenants, as well as the adverse effect on the landlord of any failure to do so, it will be fair and reasonable to refuse the tenant the privilege which the lease otherwise grants. The extent of any breach, the practicality of quantifying any damage arising out of it, the efforts made by the tenant to avoid it, the genuine interest which a landlord had in strict compliance are, in my judgment, all material factors in determining materiality.’

Judges:

HH Judge Rich QC

Citations:

[2001] L and TR 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Finch v Underwood CA 1876
The landlord had covenanted with the tenant, on receipt of notice from the latter, to renew the lease ‘in case the covenants and agreements on the tenants’ part shall have been duly observed and performed’. Notice was duly given but the landlord . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fitzroy House Epworth Street (No. 1) Ltd and Another v Financial Times Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The defendant tenant sought to exercise a break clause in the lease. The landlord said that the notice was deficient because the tenant had failed ‘materially to comply with’ its repairing obligations. The judge found the cost of repairs were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.240009

Hackney London Borough Council v Snowden: CA 2001

A short notice to quit might be given by a landlord if accepted by a tenant.

Citations:

(2001) 3 L and TR 60

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ealing Family Housing Association Ltd v McKenzie CA 10-Oct-2003
The defendant and his wife separated when she left the flat they shared. She accepted a new tenancy of other premises. The landlord claimed possession of the flat, saying that the tenancy had ended.
Held: There was no express surrender within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.235946

Fenner v Blake: 1900

The tenant told the landlord that he wanted to vacate the premises midway during the tenancy. Relying on the oral representation, the landlord sold the premises to a third party. The tenant subsequently refused to vacate the premises and claimed that there had been no consideration for his promise to quit the premises.
Held: The tenant was estopped from resiling from his promise to vacate the premises because the landlord had incurred a liability in relying on the tenant’s promise by entering into the sale and purchase agreement for the premises. In so doing, the landlord had rendered himself liable to an action at the suit of the purchaser if he was unable to provide vacant possession.

Citations:

[1900] 1 QB 426

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v Jackson (T/a Jackson Flower Company) CA 16-Jul-1997
The defendant appealed an award of pounds 11,000 damages for unlawful eviction of his tenant. The tenant had found herself unable to pay the rent and had given notice to quit. She was then told to leave immediately. The judge awarded statutory . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196695

Niholas v Secretary of State for Defence: ChD 1 Aug 2013

The claimant had been the wife of a military officer, and occupied a property licensed to him by the defendant. They divorced and he left, and she now resisted grant of possession to the defendant.
Held: The claimant failed. However, there was no disagreement between counsel that differential treatment as between Crown tenants and other tenants is capable of being discrimination on the ground of ‘other status’ within Article 14.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2945 (Ch)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human ights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Defence v Nicholas ChD 24-Aug-2015
Application to set aside an order granting the Secretary of State for Defence, the claimants in these proceedings, permission to issue a written possession. . .
Cited – Watts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.594558

Moss Empires Ltd v Olympia (Liverpool) Ltd: 1939

Lord Atkin said: ‘if it does not apply in its ordinary and natural construction, I do not understand how there can be said to exist any principle of law which would avoid an agreement not in terms avoided by the statute sought to be applied.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin, :or dPorter

Citations:

[1939] AC 544

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592687

Associated British Ports v CH Bailey plc: 1990

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

[1990] 2 AC 703, [1990] 1 All ER 929, [1990] 2 WLR 812

Statutes:

Law of Propery Act 1925 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592686

Benjamin Charlewood v The Duke of Bedford, Smith, and Bever: 2 Mar 1738

The bare entry of a steward in his lord’s contract book with his tenmts, is not an evidence itself, that there is an agreement for a lease between the lord and a tenant.der of a ter

Citations:

[1738] EngR 994, (1738) 1 Atk 497, (1738) 26 ER 314

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.386387

Earl of Pomfret v Lord Windsor (1): 30 Jul 1752

An occupying beneficiary under a settlement, who was in possession by permission of the trustees, was a tenant at will to the trustees.

Judges:

Hardwicke LC

Citations:

[1752] EngR 145, (1752) 2 Ves Sen 472, (1752) 28 ER 302

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Earl of Pomfret v Lord Windsor (2) 30-Jul-1752
. .
Cited – Watts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.378363

Earl of Pomfret v Lord Windsor (2): 30 Jul 1752

Citations:

[1752] EngR 146, (1752) Ves Sen Supp 389, (1752) 28 ER 558 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Earl of Pomfret v Lord Windsor (1) 30-Jul-1752
An occupying beneficiary under a settlement, who was in possession by permission of the trustees, was a tenant at will to the trustees. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.378364

Regina v London Borough Croydon ex parte Toff: 1988

The tenant having left the property, the landlord relet them.
Held: The act of the landlord meant it would be inequitable to hold the lease to continue.

Citations:

[1988] 20 HLR 576

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zionmor v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Islington CA 10-Oct-1997
The council appealed a finding that the claimant, a secure tenant, had not surrendered his tenancy. He had sought to exercise his right to buy the property, but was said to have left the premises before the lease was completed. The property was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.245882

Gisborne v Burton: CA 1988

The land-owner held an agricultural holding. He wanted to let it but, in doing so, to deprive the tenant of the benefit of the statutory regime giving security of tenure. So he let the property to his wife, and his wife granted a sub-tenancy to the defendant. The freeholder subsequently died and his personal representatives wanted to recover possession. They served notice to quit on the wife determining her tenancy. She refrained from serving any counternotice, nor did he serve any notice to quit on the sub-tenant. The personal representatives, after the expiry of the notice to quit, claimed possession from the sub-tenant.
Held: The tenancy to the wife was a sham, a pretence without any reality. They held that the sub-tenant was in reality a tenant holding directly from the landlord to whom he had, for years, been paying his rent. No notice to quit had been served on the sub-tenant, so his agricultural tenancy continued. The notice to quit served on the wife was so much waste of paper.
(Ralph Gibson LJ, dissenting) The tenancy granted to the wife was not a sham, but was a reality, and should be treated on that footing.

Judges:

Ralph Gibson LJ

Citations:

[1988] 3 All ER 760, [1989] QB 390, [1988] 3 WLR 921

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA 24-Oct-1995
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.245014

Pfeiffer GmbH v Arbuthnot Factors Limited: 1988

Section 136 by its terms preserves the equitable rule that the debtor can rely on any rights of set-off which arose before he had notice of assignment .

Citations:

[1988] 1WLR 150

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242644

Moss v Mobil Oil Co Ltd: 1988

The section required a notice to relate to all the property comprised in the lease. One part of the freehold had been sold off.
Held: In this case the lease had in effect let two properties, and could be construed as two separate lease, and the landlord was able to serve a s25 notice in respect of one only.

Citations:

[1988] 1 EGLR 71

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.216629

Pearson v Alyo: CA 1990

Effect of mistake in notice given under the Act.

Judges:

Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 EGLR 114

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

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.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214629

Elizabeth v Rochester City Council: CA 26 Apr 1993

Judges:

Nourse, McCowan and Roch LJJ

Citations:

(26 April 1993) unreported

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Smith v Scott ChD 1973
It is not open to the court to reshape the law relating to the rights and liabilities of landowners by applying the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and thus saying that a landowner owed a duty of care to his neighbour when selecting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mowan v London Borough of Wandsworth and Another CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimant tenant sought damages from the landlord and neighbour and fellow tenant for nuisance caused by the neighbour’s aberrant behaviour.
Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘there is a strong trend in the cases in favour of the landlord who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186074

Fairman v Perpetual Investment Building Society: HL 1923

The defendants owned a block of flats that were tenanted. The plaintiff lived as a lodger with her sister in one of the flats. She was injured when walking down the steps from her flat; the steps were part of the common property under the control of the landlord. The plaintiff argued that she was an invitee of the landlord and thus was owed a higher standard of care than would have been owed to a licensee.
Held: An invitee of a tenant was only a licensee of the landlord when using the stairway. In fact, the plaintiff would have lost on the facts, whether she was an invitee or a licensee, because the defect in the step on which she had slipped was perfectly obvious.
Lord Wrenbury stated: ‘There are some things which a reasonable person is entitled to assume, and as to which he is not blameworthy if he does not see them when if he had been on the alert and had looked he could have seen them.’ His Lordship then instanced the case of a staircase with a missing stair, or a ladder in which a rung has been removed, and went on to say that no reasonable person would expect that a step or a rung had been removed and added pungently: ‘he has nevertheless suffered from what has generally been called ‘a trap’ although if had stopped and looked he would have seen that the step or rung had been removed. He was not guilty of negligence, he was not bound to look out for such an unexpected danger as that, although if he had proceeded cautiously and looked out it would have been obvious to him.’

Judges:

Lord Wrenbury, Lord Sumner, Lord Atkinson

Citations:

[1923] AC 74, 92 LJKB 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bath v Escott ChD 11-May-2017
Judgment need not follow hearing transcript
Application to have released the audio recording of a hearing to a county court, the applicant saying that the judgment was not a true record of the hearing.
Held: Rose J explained the status of the various elements: ‘the mere fact that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.583993

Freeman v Hambrook: 1947

Citations:

[1947] LR 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stodday Land Ltd and Another v Pye ChD 7-Oct-2016
The agricultural landlord sold part of his land subject to the respondent’s tenancy to the appellant. Before the transfer was registered, notices to quit were served by both the landlord and his buyer. The tenant challenged both notices in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.570353

Pope v Day: 1635

Bond of Covenants sued against the Lessor, the Lessor is reliev’d in Equity.
The Plaintiff lets the Defendant a Lease at andpound;3 per Annum Rent, and to enter upon Default of Payment of the Rent in twenty Days, the Plaintiff gives a Bond for the Defendant’s quiet Enjoyment of the Premisses, and performing of the Covenants ; the Defendant fails in the Payment of his Rent ; the Plaintiff enters, and the Defendant sues the Bond and gets Judgment, and takes the Plaintiffs Surety in Execution, who pays the Defendant andpound;21.
This Court ordered the Defendant to repay the said andpound;21 to the Plaintiff.

Citations:

[1635] EngR 17, (1635-36) 1 Rep Ch 95, (1635) 21 ER 518 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

landlord and tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.420588

Rich v Rich: 1683

In Debate, agreed by the CounseI, and not denied by the Court, that a Lease for Years waiting on the Inheritance of a Citizen, shall not be reckon’d as a Chattel, to be divided among Children by the Custom.

Citations:

[1683] EngR 29, (1683) 2 Chan Cas 160, (1683) 22 ER 894 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.401040

Montgomery, And Others, Trustees of The Late Duke of Queensberry v Charteris, Earl of Wemyss: PC 10 Dec 1813

Entail, with prohibition against alienation, properly fortified with irritant and resolutive clauses, followed by a permissive clause to let life-rent tacks without diminution of the rental. No specific prohibition against letting of leases, except as above. A lease granted by heir of entail, for 97 years, taking a grassum, or fine. Held that this lease fell under the prohibition against alienation.

Citations:

[1813] EngR 692, (1813) 2 Dow PC 90, (1813) 3 ER 798

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.338457

John Lee Allen v James Berry: PC 1829

Under a lease commenciiig at Whitsuntide, as to the natural grass lands, and as to the arable lands at the severing of the crops, the tenant being bound to Consume the straw upon the land, and sufficiently to cultivate and manure them, the tenant is entitled to the value of the dung made between Whitsuntide and harvest, and left upon the land; and the landlord having at Whisuntide taken the straw upon the farm, which was no more than was requisite for foddering the cattle between that time and the severance of the crops, is bound to pay the value of it to the tenant.

Citations:

[1829] EngR 111, (1829) 4 Bligh NS PC 520, (1829) 5 ER 185

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.321979

South Tottenham Land Securities Ltd v R and A Millett (Shops) Ltd: CA 1984

The court considered on what date the increased rent determined by a rent review fell due for payment.
Held: O’Connor LJ refused the appeal: ‘If the parties choose to put into a lease that rent is due on quarter days, then there are good grounds for saying, where arrears arise in this fashion [i.e. retrospectively on the determination of a rent review] that they should not be due until the next following quarter day.’

Judges:

O’Connor LJ, Oliver LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 710

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council HL 1978
The House was asked whether a failure by a lessor to keep strictly to the timetable laid down in a rent review clause in a lease necessarily deprived the lessor of the benefit of the rent review.
Held: A stipulation as to time in an option . .

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 . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz ChD 11-Apr-2006
The defendant had taken assignments of the term of two underleases from the claimant, and then re-assigned them to a limited company with guarantors of the rent, and they in turn re-assigned the leases. The last company became insolvent. The . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz HL 29-Oct-2008
The lease had been assigned by the claimant to the defendant and on again to a tenant who became insolvent. The landlord had recovered sums said to be due from the claimant who now sought an indemnity from the defendant. The defendant said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.249877

Horford Investments Ltd v Lambert: CA 1976

The landlord had let two houses to the same tenant. Each had been converted into flats. The tenant lived in neither house but argued from the 1889 Act, that the singular includes the plural, and that he was a protected tenant within the meaning of section 1(1) of the 1968 Act.
Held: The court dismissed his appeal. In the context of the Act, and bearing in mind the policy of the Rent Acts, the singular did not include the plural; and, accordingly, that neither tenancy was within the definition of a protected tenancy as each of the two houses had been let as a house comprising several dwellings.
Russell LJ said that notwithstanding that the result contended for by the respondent landlord was in his view somewhat anomalous, the weight of authority was in favour of accepting such anomalies and holding that the Interpretation Act 1889 did not apply, and that the singular did not include the plural: ‘As to the first question, the point appears to me to be this: whether the phrase ‘a tenancy under which a dwelling-house (which may be a house or part of a house) is let as a separate dwelling’ embraces a case in which the tenancy includes when created a residential building containing more than one of what might conveniently be described as units of habitation. The question appears to be ultimately whether by force of the Interpretation Act 1889 ‘is let as a . . dwelling’ is to be construed as ‘is let as a . . dwelling or dwellings’. On this point it seems to me immaterial that the houses in question are physically adapted for a great number of units of accommodation: the question really is the same as would arise for solution when on the granting of the tenancy of a house it consisted of two separate self-contained flats.’
Scarman LJ: ‘The letting in each case was of a house comprising more dwellings than one. Was it the letting of a house as a dwelling (both parties agree that the word ‘separate’ is of no importance in this connection)? If [counsel for the tenant] is right that the Interpretation Act 1889 requires us to construe the subsection’s phrase ‘a dwelling’ so that it includes ‘dwellings’, cadit quaestio: each tenancy is protected. But I agree with the county court judge in thinking that Parliament when it enacted section 1(1) used the singular deliberately, and in this instance did not intend the singular to include the plural. The policy of the Rent Acts was and is to protect the tenant in his home, whether the threat be to extort a premium for the grant or renewal of his tenancy, to increase his rent, or to evict him. It is not a policy for the protection of an entrepreneur such as Mr Lambert whose interest is exclusively commercial, that is to say, to obtain from his tenants a greater rental income than the rent he has contracted to pay his landlord. The Rent Acts have throughout their history constituted an interference with contract and property rights for a specific purpose – the redress of the balance of advantage enjoyed in a world of housing shortage by the landlord over those who have to rent their homes. To extend the protection of the Acts to tenancies such as these in this case would be to interfere with contract and property rights beyond the requirements of that purpose.’

Judges:

Russell and Scarman LJJ and Plowman J

Citations:

[1976] Ch 39

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1889, Rent Act 1968 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245808

Bhogal v Cheema: 1999

The court considered a claim by the landlord that a surety under a lease which had been disclaimed by the liquidator of the tenant company was liable for rent arrears. The surety replied that after the disclaimer, the landlord was obliged to mitigate the loss of rent from the tenant. The landlord had not taken possession nor taken steps to re-let.
Held: ‘However, the landlord cannot be compelled to take possession and, of course, it will not be in his interest to do so if the market rent of the premises is less than the rent payable under the lease, unless possibly he takes the view that his remedy against the surety is unlikely to yield the full amount of the rent.’

Judges:

Sir John Vinelott

Citations:

[1999] LTR 59

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245833

Croft v Lumley: 1858

‘When a lessee commits a breach of covenant on which the lessor has a right of re-entry, he may elect to avoid or not to avoid the lease, and he may do so by deed or by word. If in that notice he says, under circumstances which bind him that he will not avoid the lease, or he does an act inconsistent with his avoiding as distraining the rent or demanding subsequent rent, he elects to not avoid the lease.’

Judges:

Bramwell B

Citations:

(1858) 6 HL Cas 672

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230298

John Laing Construction Ltd v Amber Pass Ltd: ChD 7 Apr 2004

The landlord resisted the exercise of a break clause saying that the entire premises had not been vacated. The difference was as to whether mere vacation was enough, or whether the tenant had to do some further positive act. The tenant had left assorted security fixtures and maintained security guards.
Held: The tenant had done all that was necessary to make clear his intention to vacate the premises. What was left did nothing to prevent the landlord retaking occupation.
The claimant took a commercial lease from the defendant’s predecessors. It requested a declaration that it had validly exercised a break clause. The freeholder said the lease continued since the tenant had not given full possession, not having carried out any overt act such as returning keys.
Held: The lease had been broken. The defendant’s position was artificial. The fact that the claimant had maintained security on the premises was not a denial to the landlord of possession. In the absence of any explicit form being specified, the court must look objectively at events and decide whether the person asserting termination had manifested its intention clearly, and whether the landlord could retake possession without difficulty or objection. The tenant’s notice complied with the lease and it had done everything necessary.
Robert Hildyard QC said: ‘The fact of retention of keys (or the failure to return them) may be significant but, equally, it may not be. All it may signify is . . an oversight or a desire to protect the premises both for the benefit of the [landlord] and in case the [tenant] might be found still to be liable, without in any way signifying any assertion of rights in respect of the property or being inconsistent with an effective termination of such rights.’

Judges:

Mr Robert Hildyard QC

Citations:

[2004] 17 EG 128, Gazette 22-Apr-2004, [2004] 2 EGLR 128

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cannan v Hartley 1850
. .
Cited – Gray v Bompas 1862
. .
Cited – Oastler v Henderson 1877
The tenancy was for seven years. Shortly after its creation, the tenant left the keys with the agent and asked him to dispose of it or make the best bargain for surrender he could, and left for America. A tenant not being found, the agent returned . .
Cited – Relvok Properties Ltd v Dixon CA 1972
A lease was assigned to a Mr Krokidis who then departed. The landlords instructed Estate Agents to change the locks. The defendants said that that amounted to a surrender of the lease.
Held: They were wrong: ‘In my judgment Judge Irving . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .

Cited by:

Disagreed with – Jones v London Borough of Merton CA 16-Jun-2008
The court was asked ‘If a former secure tenant of a dwelling-house who has become a ‘tolerated trespasser’ in it decides to cease to occupy it, does his liability to pay mesne profits to his former landlord in respect of the dwelling-house cease . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200443

In re Metropolis Estates Co Ltd: CA 1940

Citations:

[1940] 3 All ER 522

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In Re Park Air Services Plc; Christopher Moran Holdings Ltd v Bairstow and Another HL 4-Feb-1999
The tenant company went into liquidation, the receiver disclaimed the lease, and the landlord claimed compensation under the Act. The question concerned how the compensation was to be calculated.
Held: Where a solvent tenant under an onerous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.197014

Norfolk Capital Group Ltd v Cadogan Estates Ltd: ChD 23 Jan 2004

The tenant under a business lease served notice of his desire to carry out improvements. The landlord objected saying he would do them himself. The tenant withdrew his notice. The landlord did not go ahead.
Held: The tenant having withdrawn his notice the landlord could enforce a right of entry himself to carry out the works. The words of the section should be read in their natural meaning. The proviso implied only that the tenant was unable to carry out the works once the landlord gave his counter-notice. It did not create a right in the landlord to carry out the work.

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

Times 12-Mar-2004

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194668

Taylor vBeale: 1591

Where a tenant is required to spend money on remedying the breach of the landlord’s covenant to repair, the money so spent could be invoked to abate the rent even if it thereafter falls due to a successor landlord. Discharge by the tenant of the landlord’s obligation to pay a rent charge issuing out of the land where this had been requested by the landlord was a good defence to a claim for rent. Macdonald CB: ‘I do not see how you entitle yourself to the interposition of this court. If the landlord is bound in law or equity to repair in consequence of the accident that has happened, and you were right in expending this sum in repairs for him, it is money paid to his use and may be set off against the demand for rent. If you fail in making out these points your ground of relief is destroyed in equity, as well as at law.’ The court established a right at common law of recoupment for a tenant against his landlord.
Lord Kenyon CJ said the landlord had no obligation to repair and even had there been he could be no set-off because the damages claimed were uncertain, which in the context must mean unliquidated: ‘One objection to the plea is that it does not set off any certain debt for uncertain damages. I do not indeed see by what covenant the landlord is bound to repair damages occasioned by fire or tempest. The exception was introduced in the lessee’s covenant for his benefit and to exempt him from particular repairs, but if the defendant can maintain any action against the plaintiff, his landlord, the sum to be recovered is uncertain. It must be assessed by a jury and there is no pretence to say that those uncertain damages may be set-off to the present action.’

Judges:

Macdonald CB

Citations:

(1591) Cro Eliz 222

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v Muscat CA 10-Jul-2003
The tenant was sued by his landlord for arrears of rent, but sought an equitable set-off for damages for disrepair accruing under the previous landlord.
Held: If the entitlement to recover arrears of rent passes from assignor to assignee, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185862

Lotteryking Ltd v AMEC Properties Ltd: ChD 1995

The tenant sought to prevent the sale of the landlord’s reversion until the lessor’s repairing obligations had been met. One of the grounds was that on a sale the tenant’s right of set-off would not pass.
Held: An order was refused. Lightman J: ‘A tenant’s right to set off (against any liability to make payment to the landlord due under the lease) his claim for damages for breach of a provision in a collateral contract which runs with the reversion is exercisable (equally with his right to set off a claim for damages for breach of such a covenant contained in the lease) not merely against the person entitled to the reversion at the date of the breach, but also against any successor in title. The successor in title acquires the reversion and the benefit of all covenants contained in the lease subject to all equities existing at the date of his acquisition. The much debated decision in Reeves v Pope [1914] 2 KB 284 in nowise stands in the way of this conclusion’.

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[1995] 2 EGLR 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reeves v Pope CA 1914
The potential landlord agreed with the proposed tenant to build a hotel by a date, and the tenant agreed to take a lease when it was ready. The building was late in completion. The tenant took the lease but without prejudice to his claim for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Smith v Muscat CA 10-Jul-2003
The tenant was sued by his landlord for arrears of rent, but sought an equitable set-off for damages for disrepair accruing under the previous landlord.
Held: If the entitlement to recover arrears of rent passes from assignor to assignee, and . .
Cited – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185864

Hill v Harris: CA 1965

A lessor or vendor does not impliedly warrant that the premises are fit for any particular purpose. It is the contract which allocates the risk of the premises being unfit for such a purpose to the lessee. The lessee has duties to investigate the title, and to ensure that the permitted use under the tenancy was the permitted use in planning law.

Citations:

[1965] 2 QB 601, [1965] 1 All ER 338

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185669

Jones v Chappell: CA 1875

A lessee who erects a building without the landlord’s consent does not commit waste, unless it can be shown that the building is an injury to the inheritance. ‘The erection of a building upon land is not waste’

Judges:

Jessel MR

Citations:

(1875) LR 20 Eq 539, 44 LJ Ch 658

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182999

Burford UK Properties Ltd and Others v Forte Hotels (UK) Ltd and Others: ChD 19 Nov 2001

Properties were let on 99 year leases with provision for upwards only rent reviews. The new rents were to be linked to ‘net bedroom rent’ (NBR) figures. The lease imposed an obligation on the tenant to attempt to secure the best rents for the rooms, and not to take the bedrooms out of service save for redecoration. A claim was brought, and as a preliminary issue the question was whether the provisions amounted to a covenant as to the use of the property.
Held: The provisions were merely an extension or qualification of the definition of the terms used to calculate the rent. The use of the word ‘shall’ did not necessarily impose an obligation, and no action for damages was possible.

Judges:

Simon Berry QC

Citations:

Gazette 29-Nov-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166936

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 12 Oct 2000

Tenants of long lease where the landlord had elected to charge VAT, decided to seek sub-tenants. They delayed election themselves in order to assist such sub-tenants, but eventually waved their exemption and sought to reclaim the VAT paid to their own landlords. The commissioners objected. The deduction system was fundamental, and intended to relieve businesses of liability for the final responsibility for VAT, the payments which had been made were properly cost payments within the Directive, and the rentals could not be seen as a series of short lived inputs.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Oct-2000

Statutes:

VAT Regulations 1995/2518, Value Added Tax Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, VAT

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88885

Parc (Battersea) Ltd (In Administrative Receivership) and An v Hutchinson: ChD 9 Apr 1999

A tenant of a lease for 14 months, having agreed to exclude his security, granted a sub-tenancy to a business from month to month. The sub-tenant claimed security, but was held only to have taken an assignment of the tenant’s rights and so was not secure.

Citations:

Times 09-Apr-1999, Gazette 19-May-1999, Gazette 31-Mar-1999

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 53(1)(a), Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.84567

Great Eastern Railway Co v Lord’s Trustee: HL 14 Dec 1908

A railway company contracted by ‘ledger agreement’ with a coal merchant to allow credit for the carriage of coal. Certain allotments of space within the premises of the railway company were leased by it to the coal merchant. The ledger agreement provided that the railway company should have a continual lien for the balance of freight over the coal in course of being carried and also over coal stored upon the allotments. The allotments were situated within the company’s yard, which was regularly locked by the company at night. The coal merchant’s account being in arrear, the company locked the gates leading to the allotments and held possession of coal stored there, excluding the coal merchant.
Held ( diss. Lords Robertson and Collins) that the railway company were in possession of the coal in the allotments and that they had a valid lien.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, Atkinson, and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 1024, 46 SLR 1024

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621529

Camerons v Youngs: HL 27 Feb 1908

An action of damages against the landlord for the loss and inconvenience suffered by the inhabitants of a house, which is let to a tenant, through its insanitary condition, is based upon the contract of lease, and consequently the wife and children of the tenant, as they are not parties to that contract, have no title to sue such an action. Cavalier v. Pope, [1906] AC 428, followed; Shields v. Dalziel, May 14, 1897, 24 R. 849, 34 S.L.R. 635, commented on; and Hall v. Hubner, May 29, 1897, 24 R. 875, 34 S.L.R. 653, reversed.

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621492

Charlesworth and Another v Watson and Another: HL 22 Nov 1905

A lease for a term of twenty-one years of a seam of coal provided that the lessees should, as soon as they commenced working the coal, pay a yearly rent of pounds 100 per acre of coal, and until then a yearly rent of pounds 5. They undertook that they would ‘at all times during the said term hereby appointed fairly, duly, and honestly win, work, recover, obtain, and get the whole of the said mine . . or seam . . in a proper and workmanlike manner.’ It ultimately turned out to be impossible to work the coal except at a loss, and the lessees declined to do so.
Held that on a true construction of the lease they were bound to work the coal (the words ‘fairly, duly, and honestly’ adding to rather than detracting from their obligation), and that accordingly they were liable to the lessors in damages for breach of contract.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Robertson and Lindley

Citations:

[1905] UKHL 569, 43 SLR 569

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621193

Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Southend-On-Sea Estates Co: HL 21 Oct 1914

The Finance (1909-10) Act exempts from undeveloped land duty agricultural land held under lease granted before 30th April 1909, but provides that ‘where the landlord has power to determine the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land, the tenancy of the land or that part of the land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this provision to continue after the earliest date after the commencement of this Act at which it is possible to determine the tenancy under that power.’
By lease dated 4th December 1906 the respondents had let a farm for seven years from 29th September 1904 to 29th September 1911. Power was reserved to the lessors of resuming part of the land let at any time during the currency of the lease ‘for building or other purposes’ on giving the lessee one month’s notice in writing.
Held that the power to determine the tenancy only arose when the landlord purposed to enter ‘for building or other purposes.’ Therefore where the landlord had no such purpose the proviso did not apply.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 879, 52 SLR 879

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620728

Whitehall Court London Ltd v The Crown Estate Commissioners: CA 19 Jul 2018

This appeal raises a question about the valuation provisions in the 1993 Act, and an issue about the construction of a lease.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1704

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620482

Cathcart v Chalmers and Another: HL 21 Mar 1911

‘The statutes sanction a pactional substitution of compensation in terms of agreement for compensation in terms of the Acts; but not the adjection of a collateral stipulation which might (at least indirectly) operate to deprive the tenant of his right to obtain compensation at all.’
A stipulation, therefore, adjected to a conventional scale of compensation in an agricultural lease, that any claim for compensation must be made a month before the determination of the tenancy, whereas the statutes allow it up to the determination, is void.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 457

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1883

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619189

Hexlink Ltd T/A Excel Property v London Borough of Camden: FTTGRC 12 Jun 2018

Professional Regulation – failure to publicise details of the client money protection scheme

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT PR – 2017 – 0041

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Rights Act 2015 83(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618879

Corvan (Properties) Ltd v Abdel-Mahmoud: CA 15 May 2018

The court was asked whether an agreement between freeholder and property management company constitutes an agreement for more than twelve months, and therefore falls within the meaning of ‘qualifying long term agreement’ in section 20ZA(2) of the 1985 Act. The appeal therefore turns on (i) the correct construction and meaning of the relevant clause (clause 5) of the agreement, and (ii) the scope of section 20ZA(2) of the Act.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1102

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 20ZA(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616322

Ropemaker Properties Ltd and Another v Bella Italia Restaurants Ltd and Another: ChD 2 May 2018

‘The issue in this claim is whether an agreement for lease made between the predecessors of the claimants as developer/landlord and the defendants as tenant/guarantor (‘the Agreement’) has been validly terminated by the first defendant (‘Bella’) or whether the agreement for lease is unconditional and binds the defendants. It gives rise to some very technical issues concerning the validity of notices given under the Agreement.’

Judges:

Fancourt J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1002 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616145

Watkins, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court and Another: Admn 2 May 2018

Whether almshouse tenant had been in breach of terms of letter of appointment, and whether the agreement was in fact a tenancy.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1029 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Watts v Stewart and Others CA 8-Dec-2016
The court considered the status of residents of almshouses, and in particular whether they were licensees or tenants with associated security.
Held: The occupier’s appeal failed: ‘We do not accept the proposition that, if and insofar as Mrs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.614985

Rose v Stavrou: ChD 23 Jun 1999

A court, looking to interpret a landlord’s agents letter to a tenant regarding change of use, could look to other documents written in similar terms and used in similar circumstances in order to construe the instant document.

Citations:

Times 23-Jun-1999, Gazette 27-Jun-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.88863

Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 18 Nov 1993

VAT in rents received by receiver was payable to customs. The receiver is a VAT taxable person even if he is appointed under a floating charge.

Citations:

Times 18-Nov-1993, Gazette 02-Mar-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 23-Feb-1995
Property company receiver liable to pay VAT collected on rents to Commissioners. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.89009

Plummer v Tibsco Ltd and Another: ChD 8 Dec 1999

Where a tenant of a public house wished to assert that a clause in an option to renew restricting or tying purchases to the Landlord, he was not able to claim the benefit of what he also claimed was an illegal agreement. The nature of the obligation operated as a tie, which could include both positive and negative elements.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 (1989 No 2390)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Plummer v Tibsco Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.84779