References: [2013] EWLVT LON_LV_NFE_00AN_0
Links: Bailii
Ratio: LVT Flats – Enfranchisement & New Leases

Last Update: 18-Aug-16
Ref: 512596

The post Ground Floor Flat 28 Holmead Road – Hammersmith and Fulham : London; LVT 30 Jan 2013 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2011] EWLVT BIR_LV_NFE_00CN_0
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Flats – Enfranchisement & New Leases

Last Update: 19-Aug-16
Ref: 446171

The post 40 Bickton Close – Birmingham : Midland : Birmingham; LVT 24 Mar 2011 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2008] EWLVT LON_LV_SVC_00BE_0
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Service Charges

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 437224

The post 20 Denesmead Herne Hill Estate – Southwark : London; LVT 8 Dec 2008 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1985] 1 EGLR 128, [1985] 2 All ER 289, [1985] 2 WLR 877, [1985] AC 809, [1985] UKHL 4
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Templeman, Lord Scarman, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman
Ratio: The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: This was a tenancy not a licence. Generally speaking, exclusive possession for a fixed or periodic term at a stated rent creates a tenancy. It was for the parties to set out the terms of their agreement, but for the court to evaluate the legal effect. Three categories of case might negative the creation of a tenancy: the absence of an intention to create legal relations; some additional independent relationship which can give an alternate explanation; or the absence of a power to create a tenancy.
Lord Templeman said: ‘My Lords, Mr. Street enjoyed freedom to offer Mrs. Mountford the right to occupy rooms in the agreement on such lawful terms as Mr. Street pleased. Mrs. Mountford enjoyed freedom to contract or not to contract and both parties exercised that freedom by contracting on the terms set forth in the written agreement and on no other terms. But the consequences in law of the agreement, once concluded, can only be determined by consideration of the effect of the agreement. If the agreement satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy and the parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting they only created a licence. The manufacture of a five pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade.’
He continued: ‘The tenant possessing exclusive possession is able to exercise the rights of an owner of land, which is in the real sense his land albeit temporarily and subject to certain restrictions. A tenant armed with exclusive possession can keep out strangers and keep out the landlord unless the landlord is exercising limited rights reserved to him by the tenancy agreement to enter and view and repair’
‘My Lords, the only intention which is relevant is the intention demonstrated by the agreement to grant exclusive possession for a term at a rent. Sometimes it may be difficult to discover whether, on the true construction of an agreement, exclusive possession is conferred. Sometimes it may appear from the surrounding circumstances that there was no intention to create legal relationships. Sometimes it may appear from the surrounding circumstances that the right to exclusive possession is referrable to a legal relationship other than a tenancy. Legal relationships to which the grant of exclusive possession might be referable and which would or might negative the grant of an estate or interest in the land include occupancy under a contract for the sale of the land, occupancy pursuant to a contract of employment or occupancy referable to the holding of an office. But where as in the present case the only circumstances are that residential accommodation is offered and accepted with exclusive possession for a term at a rent, the result is a tenancy.’
This case cites:

• Overruled – Murray Bull & Co v Murray QBD ([1952] CLY 1969)
  The defendant was appointed manager of the company and granted a seven year lease whixh would terminate also on the earlier end of his appointment. He continued to hold after the term expired. His employment finished and he held over on a licence . .
• Disapproved – Sturolson v Weniz CA ([1984] 272 EG 326)
  The plaintiffs took occupation under an agreement which purported to grant a non exclusive right of possession of the flat, and to be personal. Occupation could only be shared with persons approved in advance by L. L’s agent had said the agreement . .
• Appeal from – Street v Mountford CA ([1985] 4 P & CR)
  An occupier who has been granted exclusive possession, may nevertheless be a licensee if, in the agreement: ‘there is mentioned the clear intention of both parties that the rights granted are to be merely those of of a personal right of occupation . .
• Cited – Glenwood Lumber Co Ltd v Phillips PC ([1904] AC 405)
  The Crown had granted licenses to cut timber from an area over a period of years: ‘The appellants contended that this instrument conferred only a license to cut timber and carry it away, and did not give the respondent any right of occupation or . .
• Cited – Allan v Liverpool Overseers ((1874) LR 9 QB 180)
  The court was asked whether a steamship company was liable to be rated in respect of its occupation of sheds which it occupied under a licence from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The court noted that liability for rates fell only on a person . .
• Cited – Errington v Errington and Woods CA ([1952] 1 KB 290, Bailii, [1951] EWCA Civ 2, [1952] 1 TLR 231, [1952] 1 All ER 149)
  There was a contract by a father to allow his son to buy the father’s house on payment of the instalments of the father’s Building Society loan.
  Held: Denning LJ reviewed the cases and said: ‘The result of all these cases is that, although a . .
• Approved – Radaich v Smith ((1959) 101 CLR 209,, Austlii)
  (High Court of Australia) Justice Windeyer said: ‘What then is the fundamental right which a tenant has that distinguishes his position from that of a licensee? It is an interest in land as distinct from a personal permission to enter the land and . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Considered – PW & Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd (BT Property Ltd and another, Part 20 defendants) ChD (Gazette 09-Oct-03, [2004] Ch 142, [2003] EWHC 1994 (Ch), Bailii)
  The parties, head lessor and sub-lessess, had assumed that following Brown -v- Wilson the sub-lease would continue upon the determination of the head lease, and had overlooked Pennell which overruled Brown v Wilson. However the lease made express . .
• Cited – Agnew and Kevin James Bearsley v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and Official Assignee for the Estate In Bankruptcy of Bruce William Birtwhistle and Mark Leslie Birtwhistle PC (Bailii, PC, [2001] 2 AC 710, [2001] UKPC 28, [2001] BCC 259, [2001] 2 BCLC 188, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 251, [2001] 3 WLR 454)
  (New Zealand) A charge had been given by a company over its book debts. The charge was expressed to create a fixed charge over debts uncollected when a receiver was appointed, so that on collection they became payable to the bank. Until the receiver . .
• Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd and others ChD ([2004] 2 WLR 783, [2004] 1 All ER 981, [2004] BCC 51, [2004] 1 BCLC 335, Bailii, [2004] EWHC 9 (Ch))
  The company granted a debenture to the claimant purporting to secure its book debts. The company went into liquidation. The liquidator challenged the bank’s charge.
  Held: Siebe was wrongly decided. The charge was ineffective over the book . .
• Cited – Brennan v London Borough of Lambeth CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1776, [1997] 30 HLR 481)
  The appellant sought to resist his eviction from temporary hostel accomodation provided to him by the local authority, saying that the provisions of the 1977 Act protected him.
  Held: The agreement was a licence excluded from protection by the . .
• Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
  The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
• Cited – Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust HL (Gazette 14-Jul-99, Times 25-Jun-99, Gazette 21-Jul-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] 3 All ER 481, [2000] 1 AC 406, [1999] UKHL 26, [1999] 2 EGLR 59, [1999] 3 WLR 150, [1999] EG 90, [1999] L & TR 469, (1999) 31 HLR 902, [1999] NPC 73, [1999] 30 EG 91, (1999) 78 P & CR D21)
  The claimant sought to oblige the respondent to repair his flat under the 1988 Act. The respondent replied that the arrangement was a licence only, and not protected under the Act.
  Held: The housing association had a temporary licence to . .
• Applied – Family Association v Jones CA ([1990] 1 WLR 779)
  The association as licensee of a local authority granted what was described as a licence to the defendant to occupy premises on a temporary basis. They sought possession.
  Held: A tenancy had been granted. As to the argument that there were . .
• Cited – National Car Parks Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Trinity Development Company (Banbury) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1686, [2001] 28 EG 144)
  The land owner appealed a decision that the claimant was a tenant of its premises. It had granted what was described as a licence to the claimant, but stated explicitly that the claimant’s servants should not in any way impeach the land-owner’s . .
• Cited – Moore and others v Care Standards Tribunal and Another CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 627, Times 30-May-05)
  The claimants were residents of care homes. The homes were owned by charitable companies providing housing and support for persons with mental disorders. The company’s had altered the agreements so that the claimants became assured tenants. The . .
• Cited – London Borough of Newham v Hawkins and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 451, Times 03-May-05)
  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 & Hyde Southbank Ltd v O’Kane, Helena Housing Ltd CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1010, Times 22-Sep-05, [2006] HLR 2)
  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 – Clear Channel UK Ltd v Manchester City Council CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1304)
  The claimant sought a declaration that it occupied land on which it had erected advertising hoardings under a tenancy rather than as licensee.
  Held: The draft agreement which had been proposed and acted upon with legal advice contradicted any . .
• Cited – Aslam Mohammed Ali v Sarv Mitter Khosla and Pauline Khosla and others IHCS (Bailii, [2003] ScotCS 145, ScotC)
  . .
• Cited – Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons TCC (Gazette 20-Jul-00, Bailii, [2000] EWHC Technology 84)
  The company began a claim for damages for the failure to complete an award of a contract, but then went into voluntary liquidation. The defendant refused payment claiming that it would be used only for payment of the insolvency practitioner’s costs. . .
• Cited – Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA (Times 14-Aug-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2255)
  A person with no sufficient title to land cannot create a tenancy of the land which would be binding by an estoppel if that tenancy would exclude his own possible claim for possession. . .
• Cited – William Watson Stirling v Leadenhall Residential 2 Ltd CA (Times 25-Jul-01, Bailii, Gazette 13-Sep-01, [2001] EWCA Civ 1011, [2002] I WLR 499, [2001] 3 All ER 645, [2002] L & TR 14)
  Held. A tenant who continued to stay in property after a possession order was granted, but who paid a sum equivalent to rent as it fell due, and something off the arrears, did not necessarily thereby become a tenant again, but could be viewed as a . .
• Cited – Gary Francis Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1080)
  . .
• Cited – Meynell Family Properties Limited v Vilma Patricia Meynell CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 314)
  . .
• Cited – Constance Margaret Gray and others v Dorothy Taylor CA (Gazette 20-May-98, Times 24-Apr-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 603)
  A right of occupation given by an almshouse under a charitable trust was an occupation under a licence without right of possession, not an assured tenancy. The plaintiff’s conditions of occupancy stated: ‘Residents are licensees and pay a . .
• Cited – Mattey Securities Limited v Ervin, Sutton, Mitchell CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 625, [1998] 2 EGLR 66)
  After the insolvency of an assignee of a lease, the landlord talked with possible new tenants, and the original lessee now said that the landlord had impliedly accepted a surrender of the original lease, thus releasing him from continuing liability. . .
• Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Victoria Jestico Simon Peters CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1119)
  . .
• Cited – Mohammad Yousaf Khan v Tilman Allister Mcroberts and Maqbool Ahmed CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1543)
  . .
• Cited – Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another CA (Times 24-Apr-01, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 528, [2001] L & TR 27, [2001] 16 EGCS 145, [2002] HLR 42, [2001] 26 EG 164, [2001] 2 EGLR 36, [2001] 1 WLR 1369, [2001] NPC 74)
  A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from £4,680, to £25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit . .
• Cited – Pankhania v The London Borough of Hackney ChD ([2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch))
  A brochure listing properties to be sold at auction decribed the property as being subject to a terminable licence. In fact it was a secure tenancy. The question arose as to whether a misrepresentation of law could found a cause of action.
  
• Cited – Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 2483 (Admin))
  The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted.
  Held: The grants included the . .
• Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Dr Vince Hines and Dr Prince Brown Being Trustees of Vince Hines Foundation CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1462)
  . .
• Cited – Save & Prosper Securities Ltd v Inland Revenue SCIT (Bailii, [2000] UKSC SPC00251)
  SCIT STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX – amalgamation of two unit trust schemes – whether an agreement to transfer chargeable securities – appeal allowed – FA 1986 s 87(1) . .
• Cited – In re Claims Direct Test Cases CA (Times 04-Apr-02, Gazette 03-Apr-02, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 333)
  The applicants sought to appeal on two matters where they had questions of practice in the conduct of personal injury claims. These were as to whether after-the-event cover purchased under section 29 amounted to insurance premiums, and the setting . .
• Cited – Claims Direct Test Cases, In re CA (Bailii, Times 18-Feb-03, [2003] EWCA Civ 136)
  The parties sought repayment as part of their costs of insurance premiums paid by claimants undertaking litigation.
  Held: The underwriters charged £140.00 for each case. Claims Direct charged a premium of £1,250.00 for each case, . .
• Mentioned – Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL (Times 07-May-97, Gazette 14-May-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 15, [1997] 2 All ER 513, [1997] 1 WLR 687)
  The plaintiff acquired land on which 27 chalets were erected. They served notice to quit so that the site could be developed. The defendants argued that they had residential tenancies with protection under the Rent Act 1977.
  Held: The tenants’ . .
• Cited – Mattey Securities Limited v Ervin, Sutton, Mitchell CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 625, [1998] 2 EGLR 66)
  After the insolvency of an assignee of a lease, the landlord talked with possible new tenants, and the original lessee now said that the landlord had impliedly accepted a surrender of the original lease, thus releasing him from continuing liability. . .
• Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Lee Dutton and others CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 844)
  The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
• Cited – Vesely v Levy and others CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 367)
  The tenant appealed against a finding that her tenancy was a statutory shorthold tenancy following termination of an assured shorthold tenancy, or an assured tenancy. She moved in as a carer for the tenant of the trustee defendants. That arrangement . .
• Cited – White v Knowsley Housing Trust and Another CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 404, Times 15-May-07)
  The tenant was an assured tenant. She fell into arrears of rent and a possession order was made, but suspended on terms. The court considered whether she continued to be an assured tenant, and could assert a right to buy the property as an assured . .
• Cited – Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2); Duke v Wynne CA (Bailii, [1989] EWCA Civ 2)
  Occupiers claimed that they had secure tenancies. The owner said that they were mere lodgers. In Murphy (1), the landlord said that the occupier must share possession with other occupiers if required. He now said that he had retained a key and that . .
• Cited – Crancour Ltd v Da Silvaesa and Another CA (Bailii, [1986] EWCA Civ 1, [1986] 1 EGLR 80, [1986] 52 P&CR 204, [1986] 18 HLR 265, [1986] 278 EG 618)
  The plaintiff sought possession of two rooms in a house occupied by the defendants separately. The agreements stated that they were licences. The agreements excluded the occupiers between 10:30am and noon on each day. The occupiers claimed to be . .
• Cited – Essex Plan Ltd v Broadminster ChD ((1988) 56 P&CR 353)
  The defendant with the benefit of an option to take a lease was allowed into the premises pursuant to what was described as, and purported to be, a licence. He then claimed a tenancy.
  Held: The agreement was indeed a licence. Referring to . .
• Cited – Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 546 (Ch))
  His lease had expired, but the defendant continued in occupation under a licence. The parties agreed for new leases on terms fixed, but conditional on the lease being allowed to be contracted out. The tenant now asserted that it occupied the . .
• Cited – Clarence House Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 77 (Ch))
  The claimant landlord alleged that the defendant tenant had transferred the lease under a ‘virtual assignment’ and that this was in breach of its lease.
  Held: The Abbey National case was not helpful. However, the arrangement was not a breach . .
• Cited – Alexander-David v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 259, Times)
  The authority was required to provide housing to the minor applicant, but she was too young to hold a legal estate. An equitable lease had been created, and she now appealed against an order for possession having broken the terms of the agreement, . .
• Cited – Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1046, Times, [2010] IRLR 70, [2010] IRLR 70)
  The claimants worked cleaning cars for the appellants. They said that as workers they were entitled to holiday pay. The appellant said they were self-employed.
  Held: The contract purported to give rights which were not genuine, and the . .
• Cited – Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 41, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2009/0198, SC, [2011] 4 All ER 745, [2011] IRLR 820, [2011] ICR 1157)
  The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated . .
• Cited – Mann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd v Longmint Aviation Ltd and Another ChD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2238 (Ch))
  Administrators of the claimant company asserted that the company had held informal leases of two hangars owned by the defendant, and also complained of their transfer at an undervalue. The first defendant said that the occupations were under license . .
• Applied – London & Associated Investment Trust Plc v Calow ([1986] 2 EGLR 80, [1987] 53 P & CR 340, [1986] 280 EG 1252)
  The defendants had sought premises for a consulting business. A licence was initially given to allow the premises to be prepared for occupation, but then a head lease was granted. An underlease for the defendant was prepared, but not executed. On . .
• Cited – Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd SC ([2011] NPC 115, [2011] 46 EG 105, [2011] 3 WLR 1091, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 32, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2010/0167, SC Summary, SC, [2012] 1 AC 955, [2012] PTSR 69, [2011] 3 EGLR 115, [2012] L & TR 7, [2012] 1 P & CR 8, [2012] 1 All ER 1393, [2012] HLR 15)
  The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it was . .
• Cited – IDC Group Ltd v Clark CA (Gazette 26-Aug-92, Times 23-Jul-92, Bailii, [1992] EWCA Civ 14, [1992] 49 EG 103, (1993) 65 P & CR 179)
  The court was asked: ‘whether a deed made between adjoining owners and expressed to ‘grant licence’ to the owners and occupiers for the time being of one property to pass over parts of the other in case of fire operated as the grant of an easement . .
• Cited – Norris (t/a J Davis & Son) v Checksfield CA ([1991] 1 WLR 1241, Times 23-Apr-91, [1991] 4 All ER 327, [1991] 23 HLR 423)
  The employee occupied the property under a licence granted by his employer for the better performance of his employment duties. At first he had been taken on as a semi-skilled mechanic, but he was later offered occupation of the employer’s bungalow . .
• Applied – Royal Philanthropic Society v County CA ((1985) 276 EG 1068, [1986] 18 HLR 83)
  The defendant was employed by the local authority as a house-master at a school run by the plaintiff. He held a service licence of a furnished flat at the school expressed to be ‘for the better performance of his duties’. Later he married, and on . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 190577

The post Street v Mountford; HL 6 Mar 1985 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 23-Feb-1994
Ratio: The crown’s disclaimer of a lease does not stop revival of liability under the lease on the re-registration of the company.
Statutes: Companies Act 1985 653(1)

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 77755

The post Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc v Fowle and Others; CA 23 Feb 1994 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2013] EWHC 2227 (TCC), [2013] BLR 554, (2013) 149 Con LR 147, [2013] 5 Costs LR 758
Links: Bailii
Coram: Ramsey J
Ratio: Caim for dilapidations on the termination of a lease of the Norton Building in Welwyn Garden City.
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 513786

The post Hammersmatch Properties (Welwyn) Ltd v Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Ltd and Another; TCC 24 Jul 2013 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1906] AC 428, [1906] UKHL 1
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Loreburn LC
Ratio: The wife of the tenant of a house let unfurnished sought to recover from the landlord damages for personal injuries arising from the non-repair of the house, on the ground that the landlord had contracted with her husband to repair the house.
Held: The wife was not a party to the contract, and the absence of any duty in respect of the letting an unfurnished house prevented her from relying on any cause of action for negligence. As to Langridge -v- Levy and George v Skivington: ‘In both these latter cases the defendant represented that the article sold was fit and proper for the purposes for which it was contemplated that it should be used and the party injured was ignorant of its unfitness for these purposes’
This case cites:

• Cited – Langridge v Levy ExP ((1837) 2 M & W 519, lip, Commonlii, [1837] EngR 156, (1837) 150 ER 863)
  A man sold a gun which he knew to be dangerous for the use of the purchaser’s son. The gun exploded in the son’s hands.
  Held: The son had a right of action in tort against the gunmaker, but, Parke B said: ‘We should pause before we made a . .
• Cited – George v Skivington ((1869) L R 5 Ex 1, 39 LJ Ex 8, 21 LT 495)
  There was an injury to the wife, from a hair wash purchased under a contract of sale with the husband.
  Held: The wife had a good cause of action. There was a duty in the vendor to use ordinary care in compounding the article sold, and that . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson HL ([1932] AC 562, [1932] SC (HL) 31, [1932] ScLT 317, Hamlyn, [1932] All ER Rep 1, (1932) 101 LJPC 119, (1932) 147 LT 281, [1932] SLT 317, (1932) 48 TLR 494, (1932) 37 Com Cas 350, Bailii, [1932] UKHL 100, [1932] Sol Jo 396, [1932] WN 139, [1932] SC 31, (1933) 4 DLR 337, 533 CA 47)
  The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
• Cited – Stevens (Through her Mother and Litigation Friend) v County Borough of Blaenau Gwent CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 715, Times 29-Jun-04)
  The mother of the claimant had complained to the local authority landlord about the absence of locks on her windows. The council replied that such locks could themselves be a hazard, and did not install a lock. The claimant climbed through and fell . .
• Cited – Jackson v J H Watson Property Investment Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC B1 (QB), Bailii, [2008] EWHC 14 (Ch))
  The tenant claimant held under a 125 year lease of the defendant. A fault in a light well led to water ingress and damage. The fault was in the landlord’s land but not the flat. The tenant alleged a nuisance by the landlords. The landlord replied . .
• Cited – Sykes v Harry and Trustee of Estate of Harry, a Bankrupt CA (Times 27-Feb-01, Gazette 05-Apr-01, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 167, [2001] 3 WLR 62, [2001] NPC 26, [2001] L & TR 40, (2001) 33 HLR 80, (2001) 82 P & CR DG9, [2001] 17 EG 221, [2001] 1 EGLR 53, [2001] QB 1014, (2001) 82 P & CR 35)
  The tenant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had suffered serious injury after inhaling carbon monoxide fumes from a defective gas fire. The fire had not been maintained and a fall of soot eventually prevented the escape of fumes.
  

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 197992

The post Cavalier v Pope; HL 22 Jun 1906 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1967] HCA 52, (1967) 117 CLR 539
Links: Austlii
Coram: Windeyer J, Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Owen JJ
Ratio: Austlii High Court of Australia – Landlord and Tenant – Lease – Determination – Forfeiture – Covenant to commence erection of building within specified time – Clearing operations commenced – Whether breach – Acceptance of rent after notice of breach – Conduct of lessor and lessee – Waiver – Crown lease – Statutory procedure for determination upon breach of covenant – Effect of conduct upon statutory right to determine – Notice – Requirement that conditions for failure to comply with &which lease may be determined be fully set out – Reference to terms of lease – Whether sufficient – Signature on notice – Delegation of function by Minister – Delegate designated by office held – City Area Leases Ordinance 1936-1964 (A.C.T.), ss. 6,22.*
Windeyer J set out the principles behind the waiver of a right to forfeit a lease: ‘A waiver in this sense is more properly understood as an election. The essence of the doctrine, in cases between landlord and tenant, is that where a Lease contains a provision for forfeiture and a right of re-entry upon breach of a covenant by the lessee, then, upon a breach occurring, the lessor can either take advantage of his right of forfeiture and re-entry or waive this and treat the Lease as still subsisting. If, with knowledge of a breach, giving him a right of re-entry, he does an act inconsistent with his avoiding the Lease, he is deemed to have elected not to avoid it. Anything which a landlord does or says which is an unequivocal recognition of the continued existence of the Lease when he is aware of facts which would have given him a right of re-entry will amount to a waiver of that right. One act which, by the common law, is always regarded as unequivocal, and therefore necessarily a waiver of a right of re-entry on account of a breach of covenant by the lessee, is the lessor’s acceptance, with knowledge of the fact of the breach, of rent accrued due after the breach. Apart from any special term in the Lease . . or any statutory modification of the common law, acceptance of rent due in respect of a current period is an obvious recognition of a tenancy then subsisting.’

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 568017

The post Owendale Pty Ltd v Anthony; 24 Aug 1967 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 25-May-1994
Ratio: Lease under private Act of land for free use allowed charging for access

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 77719

The post Alexandra Palace Ski Centre Ltd v Haringey London Borough Council; ChD 25 May 1994 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Gazette 22-May-1996, Times 13-May-1996, (1996) 29 HLR 259
Ratio: The fact that a secure tenant was an illegal and an overstaying immigrant and therefore should not have been granted a tenancy, gave no right to the council as landlord summarily to evict him.
Statutes: Housing Act 1985 81
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1080)
  The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 77701

The post Akinbolu v Hackney London Borough Council; CA 13 May 1996 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Ind Summary 17-May-1993
Ratio: The Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 has not altered the fundamental law on the refusal of consent to assign a lease.
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1988

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 77688

The post Air India v Balabel; CA 17 May 1993 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1982] 2 All ER 890, [1982] 1 WLR 1019
Coram: Slade LJ, Dunn LJ
Ratio: When considering whether to give consent to an assignment of a lease, the landlord need consider only his own interests.
Slade LJ said: ‘I find it rather more surprising that, when the landlords came subsequently to question the validity of the assignment in such circumstances, they should be free to rely on reasons for their refusal which had not been mentioned to the tenant, or even hinted at, either before or in the letter of 16 September 1980 which contained the outright refusal. In the absence of authority, I would have thought there was much to be said for the view that a landlord who, by stating to the tenant one reason only for refusing his consent to an assignment, that reason being a demonstrably bad one, provokes a tenant into assigning without consent, should not thereafter be allowed to rely on unstated reasons for the purpose of attacking the validity of the assignment. However, authorities . . appear to establish that the court, in considering questions of reasonableness or otherwise in this context, is not confined to the reasons expressly put forward by the landlord prior to the date of the refusal.’
Dunn LJ referred to the case law and said: ‘In both cases the withholding of consent to the assignments by the landlords were held not to have been unreasonable. In both cases the landlords were seeking to uphold the status quo and to preserve the existing contractual arrangements provided by the leases. In both cases, the landlords reasonably believed that they would suffer detriment if the assignments were made. It is true that in deciding the question of unreasonableness the courts did not confine themselves to narrow considerations as to the personality of the proposed assignee or the subject matter of the lease, as had been done in some of the older cases, and it may be that the passage in Woodfall was intended to draw attention to that, but there is nothing in the cases to indicate that a landlord is entitled to refuse his consent in order to acquire a commercial benefit for himself by putting into effect proposals outside the contemplation of the lease under consideration, and to replace the contractual relations created by the lease by some alternative arrangements more advantageous to the landlord, even though this would be in accordance with good estate management.’
This case cites:

• Cited – West Layton Ltd v Ford; West Layton Ltd v Joseph and Another CA (Bailii, [1979] EWCA Civ 1)
  When considering whether to consent to an assignment of a lease, a landlord need consider only his own interests. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – International Drilling Fluids v Louisville Investments (Uxbridge) Ltd CA ([1986] Ch 513, Bailii, [1985] EWCA Civ 3, [1986] 1 EGLR 39, Bailii, [1985] EWCA Civ 11)
  The landlord had refused a proposed assignment of office premises from a tenant who had occupied the premises as its permanent offices, to a tenant who proposed to use the premises as serviced offices – that is, for short-term rent to others. The . .
• Cited – Footwear Corporation Ltd v Amplight Properties Ltd ChD (Gazette 01-Apr-98, [1999] 1 WLR 551)
  The plaintiff was tenant of premises under a lease granted by the defendant’s predecessor in title. He vacated the premises in July 1996, and on 17 November 1997 wrote asking the defendant for a licence to sublet them to a pet shop business. The . .
• Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD ([1999] 1 WLR 531)
  Shopmoor’s predecessors demised premises for 150 years at a yearly rent of £100 on payment of a premium. A covenant provided that the tenant was not to assign or sublet without the landlord’s consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or . .
• Cited – Go West Ltd v Spigarolo and Another CA (Times 10-Feb-03, Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 17, [2003] 2 WLR 896, [2003] QB 1140)
  The tenant applied for a licence to assign the lease under section 1. The landlord refused consent, but the parties continued to negotiate. The tenant argued that the landlord’s continuation of negotiations showed the earlier counter-notice to have . .
• Cited – NCR Ltd v Riverland Portfolio No.1 Ltd ChD ([2004] EWHC 2073 (Ch))
  The tenant complained that the landlord had unreasonably delayed approval of a proposed underletting.
  Held: The court had to bear in mind that the consent was to an underlease, and that therefore there was no privity between the landlord and . .
• Considered – Orlando Investments v Grosvenor Estate Belgravia ([1989] 43 EG 175)
  The lease contained a tenant’s covenant to repair, and not to assign without the landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. T, himself an assignee, and therefore not liable on the covenant after assignment, sought consent from . .
• Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD (Bailii, [1997] EWHC Ch 368)
  The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
  Held: The 1988 Act . .
• Cited – Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Shopmoor Ltd ChD (Bailii, [1997] EWHC Ch 368)
  The tenants had applied for a licence to assign the property. The landlords had prevaricated, and the judge found their delay unreasonable and that it amounted to an unreasonable withholding of consent. They now appealed.
  Held: The 1988 Act . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 22-Aug-16
Ref: 199281

The post Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v Moss; CA 1982 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 30-Jul-1997
Ratio: Appointment of receiver to tenant is not act committed by tenant for purposes of irritancy clause.

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 78025

The post Aubrey Investments Ltd v D A Crawford Ltd (In Receivership); OHCS 30 Jul 1997 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 19-Jan-1999
Ratio: Where the rent-review clause in a lease provided an ultimate failsafe procedure to take place if the review had not been completed by a certain time, then the presumption against time being of the essence could be displaced.

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 78165

The post Banks & Another v Kokkinos & Another; ChD 19 Jan 1999 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2012] EWLVT CAM_LV_SVC_00ME_0
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Service Charges

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 467800

The post 42 Atherton Court Meadow Lane – Windsor and Maidenhead : Midland : Birmingham; LVT 31 May 2012 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Gazette 02-Sep-1999
Ratio: The replacement by a tenant of windows in a flat did not amount to structural alterations. The lease was clear as to what could constitute such alterations, and despite the different uses of the term in the lease, it clearly did not include either windows or doors.
This case cites:

• considered – Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School CA ([1978] 2 EGLR 61, [1978] CLY 2324, Bailii, [1978] EWCA Civ 5, [1979] QB 56)
  The court considered the finality of decision of a county court judge regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘structural alteration’ in the 1974 Act. Paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 8 provided that the determination of the county court judge ‘shall . .
• considered – Irvine v Moran ([1991] 1 EGLR 261)
  The tenant took a lease for under 7 years, accepting repairing and other obligations. The question was how those obligations fitted the landlord’s implied obligations under section 32, and the effect of the section on decorating covenants. The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 78342

The post Bent v High Cliff Developments Ltd and Another; ChD 2 Sep 1999 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 28-Sep-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1920, [1999] 2 FLR 993
Links: Bailii
Ratio: 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.’
Statutes: Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37(2)(b)

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 78285

The post Bater v Greenwich London Borough Council; CA 28 Sep 1999 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 10-Jun-1994
Ratio: A Landlord is entitled to reclaim his uninsured losses from a tenant of part of the property after damage to the property.

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 78241

The post Barras v Hamilton; OHCS 10 Jun 1994 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 24-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 528, [2001] L & TR 27, [2001] 16 EGCS 145, [2002] HLR 42, [2001] 26 EG 164, [2001] 2 EGLR 36, [2001] 1 WLR 1369, [2001] NPC 74
Links: Bailii
Ratio: A grant of an assured tenancy included a clause under which the rent would be increased from £4,680, to £25,000 per year. It was expected that the tenant would be reliant upon Housing Benefit to pay the rent, and that Housing Benefit would be insufficient.
Held: The agreement to increase the rent was a sham. The purpose of the agreement was to grant an assured tenancy, and therefore the purpose was to provide security. The rent increase was never expected to be paid, and although the Act left the parties to agree their rent, the increased amount when properly analysed was not rent, but a way of defeating the tenat’s security.
This case cites:

• Cited – Street v Mountford HL ([1985] 1 EGLR 128, [1985] 2 All ER 289, [1985] 2 WLR 877, [1985] AC 809, [1985] UKHL 4, Bailii)
  The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
  Held: . .
• Cited – L’Estrange v F Graucob Limited CA ([1934] 2 KB 394, [1934] All ER 16)
  The company’s order form contained a clause providing them with complete exemption from liability: ‘Any express or implied, condition, statement of warranty, statutory or otherwise is expressly excluded’.
  Held: If a party signs a written . .
• Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA ([1967] 2 QB 786, [1967] 1 All ER 518, [1967] 2 WLR 1020)
  The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
  Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
• Cited – Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA ([1996] 1 All ER 312, [1997] QB 858)
  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 . .
• Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL ([1988] 1 EGLR 36, [1990] 1 AC 417, [1988] 3 WLR 1205, Bailii, [1988] UKHL 8, [1988] 3 All ER 1058)
  In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
• Cited – Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CA (lip, [1989] QB 433, [1998] 1 All ER 348, Bailii, [1987] EWCA Civ 6)
  Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date.
  Held: The plaintiff had not . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 41, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2009/0198, SC, [2011] 4 All ER 745, [2011] IRLR 820, [2011] ICR 1157)
  The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 78168

The post Bankway Properties Ltd v Penfold-Dunsford and Another; CA 24 Apr 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Ind Summary 15-May-1995, Times 03-Apr-1995, (1995) 27 HLR 433
Coram: Waite LJ
Ratio: A dwelling subtenant of part of premises comprised in a business lease became a secure tenant on the surrender of the mesne tenancy. S79 Housing Act 1985 had ambulatory effect.
Waite LJ said: ‘The use of the term ‘at any time’ in section 79(1) shows that the section is to have ambulatory effect. Occupiers, that is to say, may be liable to pass in and out of secure tenant status – depending upon whether their landlord for the time being is or is not a local authority; or upon changes in the tenant’s own circumstances taking him in and out of the tenant condition.’
Statutes: Housing Act 1985 79(1)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Ali Bhai and Another v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd CA (Times 15-Nov-00, Gazette 23-Nov-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 276, [2001] 2 All ER 865)
  The tenant appealed against a refusal of what he said was his right to buy the flat he occupied. The Housing Association respondent and arbitrator had said that the tenancy had been assured, not secure and that therefore no right to buy had existed. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 23-Aug-16
Ref: 78274

The post Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council v Paice; CA 3 Apr 1995 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.