Landlord and Tenant - 1995

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 48 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Eller -v- Grovecrest Investments Ltd [1995] QB 272
1995 CA Hoffmann and Neill LJJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court set out the history of the development of the law relating to the availability of set-off in the case where a landlord has levied or intends to levy distress. Held. The law had developed, and an equitable right of set off against a distress for rent might now be available to a tenant. Neill LJ said: "In principle . . I can see no reason to distinguish between the position of a landlord who is asserting his right in respect of arrears of rent by a claim for possession or by an action in debt, on the one hand, and that of a landlord who is asserting identical rights, but who is availing himself of the remedy of distress. In both cases the proper question to be determined is, looking at the state of account between the parties in the light of their rights under the lease, is any sum due to the landlord."

Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd -v- National Westminster Bank plc [1995] 1 EGLR 97
1995 CA Hoffmann, Leggatt and Simon Brown LJJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court considered the proper construction of rent review clauses in several cases. The underlying result which the landlords sought in each case was the same. Held: It was a most improbable commercial result. Where the result, though improbable, flowed from the unambiguous language of the clause, the landlords succeeded, whereas where it did not, they failed. The ordinary principles of construction applied to rent review clauses. Hoffmann LJ discussed Lord Diplock's admonition that in a commercial contract too much weight should not be given to "detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words . . [if it] is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense" and said: "This robust declaration does not, however, mean that one can rewrite the language which the parties have used in order to make the contract conform to business commonsense. But language is a very flexible instrument and, if it is capable of more than one construction, one chooses that which seems most likely to give effect to the commercial purpose of the agreement." Simon Brown LJ said that, having regard to the improbable result for which the landlords contended, only the most unambiguous of such clauses could properly be found to bear the landlords construction and that in the case of only one of the leases did the clause "unambiguously . . achieve the improbable result for which the landlords contend", though as to two fo the cases, "For my part, I would accept that the more obvious reading of both favours the landlord's construction. I am persuaded, however, that they are capable of being, and therefore, for the reasons already given, should be, construed differently."

Shortland Investments Ltd -v- Cargill plc [1995] EGLR 51
1995	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	The fact that a subsequent tenant was given a rent free period or was paid a reverse premium to take the premises, could allow a court to infer the extent of damage to the landlord's reversion caused by the first tenant's breach of his covenant to repair.

Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd -v- Mandeno [1995] 3 NZLR 114
1995	Commonwealth, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	A time provision governing the time within which the lessee may serve a counternotice is of the essence.

Australian Mutual Provident Society -v- National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited [1995] 1 NZLR
1995 Hardie Boys J	Landlord and Tenant, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Citers
	(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The Court was asked whether a rent review clause which provided for an open review was inconsistent with the rent review being operable by the lessor alone. The lease did not contain a ratchet clause, or upwards only review clause. The judge had held that to construe the clause as operable only by the landlord was inconsistent with the absence of a ratchet clause. The words in the lease that the landlord "may" give notice requiring the rent to be reviewed had to be read as mandatory. Held: The court reversed the decision. Hardie Boys J: "With respect, we cannot agree with Barker J that the deciding factors in the construction of the document are the wording of the demise clause and the absence of a ratchet clause. In determining the construction to adopt, the Court must look at the document as a whole, rather than give emphasis to any particular part. And it must endeavour to ascertain the intention of the parties by reference to the commercial purpose, and to the practicalities, for the parties obviously intended that what they provided for should work in a sensible and realistic way. Those principles are not easy to apply in this case, for all there is is the sublease. There is no evidence of surrounding circumstances that may have provided some assistance in judging what the parties intended by the words they used. Nor is it suggested that the words used did not correctly record their agreement; there is no application for rectification or for a remedy under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. The case turns entirely on the sublease itself, and any inferences that may properly be drawn from it. But these are very limited. It is understandable that the sublessor may have desired rent reviews to be optional. It is equally understandable that the sublessee may have desired them to be obligatory. There are valid reasons for both alternatives. The same may be said of the short period during which the commencing rent is expressed to be payable, and of the unusual term of the lease. There are doubtless several possible explanations for both. Even if, as Barker J held, it is a reasonable inference that the omission of an express ratchet provision from cl 3.06(a) was deliberate, it does not necessarily follow that the parties must have intended that the sublessor was required to give a notice under cl 3.06(a), whether it wished to do so or not. It is quite possible that what they intended was that, while the sublessor would not be required to invoke cl 3.06(a) at each review date, if it elected to do so it would accept the risk that despite its expectations the result would be that the rent was fixed at less than the rent previously applicable. That approach may well accord with commercial reality."

Lotteryking Ltd -v- AMEC Properties Ltd [1995] 2 EGLR 13
1995 ChD Lightman J	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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".

Micrografix -v- Woking 8 Ltd [1995] 2 EGLR
1995 ChD Jacobs	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The tenants gave a notice determining the lease on 23 March 1995 when under the relevant clause they could only have done so on 23 June 1995. Jacob J. held that, as the landlords knew that the date of determination could only be 23 June 1995, they would not have been misled, and the notice should therefore be treated as an effective notice to determine the lease on the correct date, viz. 23 June 1995. A notice to determine under a commercial lease is to be interpreted not as a "technical document" but in accordance with business common sense.

Pennell -v- Payne [1995] QB 192; [1995] 1 EGLR 6
1995 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown's	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	The operation of the break clause in a lease will (in the absence of provision to the contrary) have the effect of terminating not just the lease but also the underlease, and any inferior sub-tenancies.

Ganton House Investments -v- Crossman Investments [1995] 1 EGLR 239
1995	Landlord and Tenant
	When assessing a new rent under the Act, the the value of the premises attributable to the obtaining of a license under the 1963 Act is to be disregarded.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 34(1)(d) - Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963

Little -v- Courage Ltd (1994) 70 P & CR 469
6 Jan 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Contract	Casemap 1 Cites
	The tenancy contained an option for the tenant to renew, subject to agreement being reached with the brewer on a business plan. The tenant said he wished to renew, but the brewer did not present a business plan or agreement, and then the landlord refused to grant a new lease, saying that no new plan or agreement had been entered into. Held: The tenant's appeal succeeded. The renewal of the lease under the covenant was enforced against the Landlord, despite the failure of the condition precedent. The brewer's refusal to agree a plan did not allow the Landlord to refuse a new lease. The lease should be read so as to make the plan and agreement a condition, only if one was offered by the brewer. Under that reading, the landlord would not be entitled to refuse to renew the lease.

Dean & Chapter of Cathedral of Metropolitan Church of Christ Canterbury -v- Whitbread Plc
7 Feb 1995 ChD	Landlord and Tenant
	A tenant holding over after his lease has to pay the market rent for property. It is by way of an action for the use of the property.

Sandhu and Another -v- Ladbroke Hotels Ltd
17 Feb 1995 ChD	Landlord and Tenant
	Repairing covenant continued to apply despite building life being less than term.

Sargent -v- Commissioners of Customs & Excise
23 Feb 1995 CA	VAT, VAT, Landlord and tenant, Insolvency	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Property company receiver liable to pay VAT collected on rents to Commissioners.

Crawley Borough Council -v- Ure (1996) 1 QB 13
23 Feb 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	A notice to quit given by one of two joint tenants was binding on the other tenant despite there having been no consultation between them.
	Law of Property Act 1925 26-3

Hynes -v- Twinsectra Ltd
8 Mar 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	After dismissal of forfeiture case by consent, the lease is fully restored for the purposes of enfranchisement.
	Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Part I

Dean & Chapter of Cathedral of Metropolitan Church of Christ Canterbury -v- Whitbread Plc
20 Mar 1995 ChD	Landlord and Tenant
	Where there is a disagreement on the holding over rent it will be set as market value.

Lodge (T/A Jd Lodge) -v- Wakefield Metropolitan Council [1995] EWCA Civ 41; [1995] 38 EG 136; [1995] EGCS 51; [1995] 2 EGLR 124
21 Mar 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff had formerly been a tenant of the defendant under an informal tenancy. No rent had been paid since 1974. He claimed to have acquired the land by adverse possession. He gave evidence at trial that if he had been asked to pay rent at any time before the twelve years were completed, he would have done so. Held: A tenant in possession was during the subsistence of the tenancy entitled to exclude from the land the world at large, including the landlord. The squatter necessarily had the requisite mental intention of possessing the property for the purpose of adverse possession.
	Link[s] omitted

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council -v- Paice (1995) 27 HLR 433
3 Apr 1995 CA Waite LJ	Landlord and Tenant, Housing	Casemap 1 Citers
	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."
	Housing Act 1985 79(1)

In Re Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute
13 Apr 1995 ChD	Landlord and Tenant
	Reasonable notice for revocation of licence longer for school.

Welby and Another -v- Casswell
14 Apr 1995 CA	Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A farming tenant drew his income from farming despite living off his overdraft on a small return from farming activities. Held: The court should adopt a purposive construction. The right to inherit an agricultural tenancy survived if he worked and was dependant on the farm despite the absence of any profit.
	Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 36(3)(a)

Crawley Borough Council -v- Ure
18 Apr 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	Encouragement from the landlord to one of two joint tenants to give notice to quit did not vitiate the landlord's possession claim.
	Law of Property Act 1925 26-3 36

Sampson and Others -v- Wilson and Others
19 Apr 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Agency
	A landlord's estate management agent was not jointly liable with the Landlord for damages for acts of harassment of the tenant committed by the landlord.
	Housing Act 1988 27 28

Escalus Properties Ltd -v- Robinson and Others; Same -v- Cooper-Smith and Others; Etc
21 Apr 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	Relief from forfeiture of a long lease at a low rent may be granted retrospectively.

Wharfland Ltd -v- South London Co-Operative Building Company Ltd
25 Apr 1995 QBD	Landlord and Tenant
	A landlord accepting an assignment may not distrain against the new tenant for the arrears of a previous tenant.

Salford Van Hire (Contracts) Ltd -v- Bocholt Developments Ltd
11 May 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	A distraint made against a vehicle on hire to the tenant was invalid, and the Landlord was liable. The modern day prevalence of the practice of leasing may be enough notice that a vehicle may be on hire to a tenant.
	Law of Distress (Amendment) Act 1908 4(1)

Escalus Properties Ltd -v- Robinson and Others; Same -v- Dennis and Others Etc [1996] QB 231
11 May 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	Mortgagee is entitled to relief against forfeiture retrospectively. Sub-tenants and mortgagees can also apply for relief under s 146(2).
	Law of Property Act 1925 146(2)

Wandsworth London Borough Council -v- Atwell (1995) 27 HLR 536
22 May 1995 CA Glidewell LJ, Waite LJ	Landlord and Tenant, Housing
	The tenant took on a weekly tenancy in 1975 of Wandsworth under an "Acceptance of Offer of Accomodation". The document made no provision for service. The tenant left for America leaving A as a caretaker. Wandsworth ended the tenancy serving a notice under the 1997 Act py post both at the property and at his address in the US. The tenant denied receiving either. The landlord claimed that service was deemed by section 196(2) of the 1925 Act. The tenant now appealed against the order for possession. Held. The appeal succeeded. Section 196 only applied to a provision in an instrument and did not affect a mode of service specified in an Act. There could be no deemed service of a notice to quit under the 1977 Act.
	Law of Property Act 1925 1963-3 - Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Kaur -v- Gill
15 Jun 1995 CA Auld LJ, Nourse LJ, Kennedy Lj	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	A landlord could be liable for for orders for damages both for a common law breach of quiet enjoyment under the lease and for the loss of occupation under the 1988 Act. The case of Mason was distinguished because on the basis that the common law damages were awarded here not for the loss of occupation, but for the breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
	Housing Act 1988 27 28

Keepers and Governors of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon -v- James and Others
7 Jul 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Housing
	A protected subtenant becomes a protected tenant on the forfeiture of an intermediate lease.

Proudreed Ltd -v- Microgen Holdings Plc (1995) 72 P&CR 388; [1996] 1 EGLR 89
17 Jul 1995 CA Schiemann LJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The handing back of keys without more does not of itself constitute a lease surrender. The passage in Tarjoumi as to implied surrender would have been more correct if there was added the phrase: "or such as to render it inequitable for the landlord to dispute that the tenancy has ceased." Where a new lease was to be granted, any implied surrender would occur only on the grant of the new lease. The circumstances must be such as to render it inequitable for the landlord or the tenant to dispute that the tenancy has ended.
	Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Retail Parks Investments Ltd -v- Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Scotland)
18 Jul 1995 OHCS	Landlord and Tenant, Scotland	Casemap 1 Citers
	Obligation to use premises as bank was enforced against a leaseholder wanting to close the business.

Mannai Investment Co Ltd -v- Eagle Star Assurance Co Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1508
19 Jul 1995 CA Nourse LJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A notice exercising a tenant's or landlord's right to break a lease, must be given precisely as required by the break clause in the lease. Nourse LJ said that the last moment of time on one day is not the same as the first moment of time on the next: "The two moments of time, albeit separated by an immeasurable stroke of midnight, have always been treated as separate", and "If a notice clearly and specifically purports to determine a demise for a fixed term on a date not authorised by the lease, the date cannot be corrected simply because it is clear, first, what the correct date ought to be, secondly, that the wrong date was inserted by a slip and, thirdly, that the recipient might guess or even be certain that that was what happened. An exception can only be made where the date specified is an impossibility, either because it has passed or because it is on some other ground inconceivable that it was the date intended."

Friends Provident Life Office -v- British Railways Board
31 Jul 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	An obligation taken on by a subsequent assignee cannot affect liability of original Tenant or surety. Variation of tenancy without intention to create new tenancy does not end surety.

British Telecommunications Plc -v- Sun Life Assurance Society Plc [1996] Ch 69
3 Aug 1995 CA Nourse LJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A landlord became in breach of his duty of repair under his covenant immediately the repairable defect occurred, not after a reasonable time had been given to make the repair. Nourse LJ summarised the earlier authorities: "It is now established by a line of authority culminating in the decision of the House of Lords in O'Brien v Robinson [1973] AC 912 that, where a defect occurs in the demised premises themselves, a landlord is in breach of his obligation to keep them in repair only when he has information about the existence of the defect such as would put a reasonable landlord on inquiry as to whether the works of repair to it are needed and he has failed to carry out the necessary works with reasonable expedition thereafter . ."

Spath Holme Ltd -v- Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Committee (1995) 28 HLR 107; [1995] 2 EGLR 80
9 Aug 1995 CA Glidewell LJ. and Sir John May	Housing, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The rent assessment committee had rejected market rent comparables as an indicator of market rent for the subject premises, because, inter alia, they were not satisfied of the actual absence of scarcity, and thus found that the landlord had not demonstrated the unsoundness of registered fair rent comparables. Held: The decision was upheld: A fair rent is a market rent ignoring personal circumstances and scarcity. Comparables were wrongly rejected where discounting for scarcity and security possible. Fair rents were based on market rents, less scarcity and other disregards, and were not reasonable rents in any other sense including their impact on tenants. The Court gave general guidance to rent assessment committees making it clear that they were expected to follow market rent comparables as the best evidence of the starting point for fair rents, to give clear reasons and to explain their determinations with arithmetic if necessary. A "fair rent" under the 1977 Act is the same as a "market rent" under the 1988 Act save for the assumption of no scarcity and allowing for the statutory"disregards", and that, in assessing a fair rent, regard should be had to market rent comparables if any: "... the fair rent to be determined is a market rent less the disregards and discounted for scarcity. Thus, ... if there is no scarcity and no disregards then the rents should be the same whether the tenancy is a regulated tenancy or an assured tenancy." A fair rent is an adjusted market rent and market rent comparables are relevant to the assessment of a fair rent: "In this case there are a number of flats in the same block let on assured tenancies at, by definition, open market rents which are virtually identical to those for which a fair rent is to be determined. In my judgment if, in those circumstances, a Rent Assessment Committee wishes to exercise its discretion to adopt some other comparable or method of assessment it will be failing in its duty to give reasons if it does not explain why. In this case the third reason given by the Rent Assessment Committee as recorded by the judge was that the registered rent comparables had not been demonstrated to be unsound. That is not, of course, a reason for rejecting the assured tenancy comparables. It is not for the court to say in advance what would be a good reason for doing so but if such a reason involves 'working through' such comparables so be it: that consequence is no ground for rejecting the validity of its cause. But it should also be noted that the registered rent comparables are not in their nature any more or less sound than the open market rent with or without discount. Any registered rent has built into at least two variables namely the open market rent and the discount for scarcity. Each should have been considered at the time of the original determination. The assessment of the soundness of that registered rent for use as a comparable would require each of those variables to be reconsidered at the time of their possible use as a comparable. In this connection it was also objected that if the Rent Assessment Committee were required to give detailed reasons that might necessitate giving detailed arithmetical workings or quantifying the degree of scarcity involved contrary to statements in Guppy's Property v. Knott No 1 ... and Metropolitan Properties v. Laufer ... But those statements were made in relation to the facts of those cases. It does not follow that there will not be cases in which the duty to give reasons will require such workings or quantification to be afforded."
	Rent Act 1977 70(1)

Proudred Ltd -v- Microgen Holdings Plc
21 Aug 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	Landlords holding keys during discussion with receiver not accepting surrender.

Clifford Hart -v- London Borough of Brent [1995] EWCA Civ 4; [1995] EWCA Civ 4
23 Sep 1995 CA Lord Justice Butler-Sloss Lord Justice Roch	Landlord and Tenant
	The applicant sought leave to appeal an order for possession of the property he held under a tenancy of the local authority. There had been almost no rent paid. Held: After several opportunities to pay the rent, the arrears had merely grown, and could not now be realistically repaid. The appeal had no prospect of success, and leave was refused.
	Link[s] omitted

Capital Land Holdings Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment
28 Sep 1995 OHCS	Landlord and Tenant
	The service of a notice under the terms of a lease was not sufficient when it was not carried out in accordance with the terms set by the lease.

Ladbroke Racing Ltd -v- Otter Holdings Ltd
11 Oct 1995 CC	Landlord and Tenant
	Application for interim rent on renewal proceedings can be discontinued.

Belvedere Court Management Ltd -v- Frogmore Developments Ltd [1996] 1 All ER 312; [1997] QB 858
24 Oct 1995 CA Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Hobhouse LJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 were not shams even though they had been intended to work around the 1987 Act. Criticising the anomalies under the Act, Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: "Nothing in section 12 imposes on the new landlord a duty not to dispose of his interest, such as is imposed on the original landlord by section 6(1). It is unclear why not. There is nothing in section 12 which gives the tenants a right to require a subsequent purchaser from the new landlord to dispose of his interest to the tenants' nominees. A limited right is given by section 16, but it is not equivalent to the right given by section 12(1) against the new landlord. It is again unclear why not. Counsel discounted the suggestion that an acceptance notice under section 6(1)(b) or a purchase notice under section 12(1) might create a equitable interest in the land capable of registration as a land charge or protection by a caution, and I am not inclined to disagree. But one could wish that the Act provided as many answers as it raised problems." "A purchase notice must give adequate notice to the new landlord of the qualifying tenants' desire to purchase the estate or interest that they should have been offered by the original landlord. That is imperative, in the sense that it must be followed to the letter, but some of the other requirements of section 12 are only directory." Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the work of the committee upon whose work the 1987 Act had been founded: "the committee intended occupying tenants to have a right to acquire the reversion to their leases when their landlord proposed to part with it, and that the ultimate objective was to give the tenants in a block where the majority wanted it a power to manage the block themselves and so to have a greater say in their own affairs."
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5

Ladbroke Racing Ltd -v- Otter Holdings Ltd
25 Oct 1995 MCLC	Landlord and Tenant
	An applicant for interim rent on a renewal of a business tenancy has the right to discontinue his claim - no leave required.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Kingston-Upon-Thames Royal Borough Council -v- Marlow
6 Nov 1995 QBD	Landlord and Tenant
	Tenant not liable for rates after forfeiture - constituted termination of lease.

Jervis -v- Harris [1995] EWCA Civ 9; [1996] Ch 195; [1996] 2 WLR 220; [1996] 1 All ER 303; [1996] 1 EGLR 78; [1996] 10 EG 159
14 Nov 1995 CA Millett LJ, Otton LJ	Landlord and Tenant, Contract, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	A provision in the lease obliged a tenant to carry out repairs and provided that if he did not do so, the landlord might do the repairs and recover from the tenant the costs and expenses of doing so. Held: The provision was not a penalty. The money was payable not upon the breach but because the landlord decided to do the repairs himself and upon him doing them, notwithstanding that the tenant's breach was, of course, necessarily a part of the sequence of events whereby the money came to be payable. A landlord's claim for rent is a claim in debt and the rule requiring an injured party to mitigate his losses does not apply to a claim in debt.
	Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 1
	[ Bailii ]

Graysim Holdings Ltd -v- P & O Property Holdings Ltd [1995] 3 WLR 854; [1996] AC 329; [1996] 3 EG 124; [1995] 4 ALL ER 831
24 Nov 1995 HL Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A market hall had been let to a tenant under a lease. The tenant fitted out the entire hall with stalls and entered into agreements with the stallholders, by which they paid the tenant a rent and service charge for services provided by the tenant. The head landlord served a notice to terminate the lease on the tenant, who applied for a new tenancy. Which tenant was properly the occupier, the respondent, the tenant of the enclosed market hall, or the individual stallholders with exclusive possession of their stalls? Held: The market operator was not a protected tenant. 'Occupancy' for the security provisions requires some physical occupation or use by the tenant himself. There could not be more than one occupier of the same holding for the purposes of that Act. The occupation by the individual stallholders excluded the intermediate lease from protection. Lord Nicholls: 'first I must consider a feature central to the statutory structure: the requirement that the property must be "occupied" by the tenant. As has been said on many occasions, the concept of occupation is not a legal term of art, with one single and precise legal meaning applicable in all circumstances. Its meaning varies according to the subject matter. Like most ordinary English words ´occupied', and corresponding expressions such as occupier and occupation, have different shades of meaning according to the context in which they are being used. Their meaning in the context of the Rent Acts, for instance, is not in all respects the same as in the context of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. This is not surprising. In many factual situations questions of occupation will attract the same answer, whatever the context. A tenant living alone in a detached house under a residential lease would be regarded as the sole occupier of the house. It would need an unusual context to point to any other answer. But the answer in situations which are not so clear cut is affected by the purpose for which the concept of occupation is being used. In such situations the purpose for which the distinction between occupation and non-occupation is being drawn, and the consequences flowing from the presence or absence of occupation, will throw light on what sort of activities are or are not to be regarded as occupation in the particular context. In Part II of the Act of 1954 ´occupied' and ´occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by him' are expressions employed as the means of identifying whether a tenancy is a business tenancy and whether the property is part of the holding and qualifies for inclusion in the grant of a new tenancy. In this context ´occupied' points to some business activity by the tenant on the property in question. The Act seeks to protect the tenant in his continuing use of the property for the purposes of that activity. Thus the word carries a connotation of some physical use of the property by the tenant for the purposes of his business.'
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II

London (1967 Act Decisions) [1995] EWLVT 2
1 Dec 1995 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	[ Bailii ]

Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation -v- Next Plc Etc [1996] 33 EG 91
5 Dec 1995 ChD	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	Trade fixtures attached by a tenant will not usually add to rent on review.

Doorbar -v- Alltime Securities Ltd
18 Dec 1995 CA	Insolvency, Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant
	Landlord bound by voluntary arrangement on future rent despite disagreement. A meeting chairman has power to impose 'agreed' value on claim to allow vote to creditor.
	Insolvency Rules 1986 5 17(3)

Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd -v- Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd
29 Dec 1995 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	A 'keep open' clause in a commercial lease can be enforced by an order specific performance but only in rare cases. It would normally be unreasonable.