Landlord and Tenant - 2000

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 89 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

Commissioners of Customs & Excise -v- Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group Plc [2000] STC 033
2000 ChD Park J	Landlord and Tenant, VAT	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The taxpayer sought to recover tax it had paid on VAT on rents. It had sublet and at first not charged VAT, but later changed its mind and charged VAT. The Commissioners objected to the reclaim for the earlier period. Held: The tribunal's conclusion was that the direct and immediate link which was required was missing, but the direct and immediate link was not missing. It considered that the quarterly rental payments which RSA made during the vacant unelected periods secured for it a series of separate inputs, each of which lasted for only three months. The court did not accept this analysis. RSA's superior lease of each property was one input, not a multiplicity of separate short-term inputs, and all RSA's payments of rents (including service charge rents) during the vacant unelected periods were cost components of the input.

Coville -v- Adeptus Ltd [2000] 80 P&CR D14
2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	The tenant had originally occupied the premises under a business and residential tenancy. The property decayed, and the business failed. She sought a new tenancy under the 1954 Act. Held: The test of business use was at the time of the application for the new tenancy. At that time, though her occupation had been continuous, at the relevant time the property was not occupied for the purposes of a business, and she had no security.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

London Baggage -v- Railtrack plc [2000] EGCS 57
2000 ChD	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	The landlord served a statutory notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenant failed to serve a counternotice and lost his statutory protection. The landlord allowed the tenant to hold over under a tenancy at will. Held: The holding over did not create a new lease binding of the landlord. There had been a common intention only to create a tenancy at will whilst negotiations allowed agreement of terms and an application to the court to have the replacement tenancy excluded from protection.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Arundel Corporation Ltd -v- Financial Trading Company Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 456
2000	Landlord and Tenant
	The parties had started the renewal procedures under the 1954 Act. After the end of the contractual term, the tenant handed in the keys and purported to surrender the lease at common law. He did nothing to discontinue the proceedings. Held: The continuation of the tenancy under the Act did not prevent the possibility of a common law surrender.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Webb -v Sandown Sports Club Ltd [2000] EGCS 13
2000	Landlord and Tenant
	The tenant sought to argue that having vacated the premises before the end of the lease, he had surrendered and there was no continuing statutory tenancy under which he might be liable to pay rent. Held: The tenant had left various items in the premises including papers and stock. The effective date of quitting would be the date upon which these were removed, and not before.

Wells Fashion Group Ltd -v- General Accient Life Assurance Limited [2000] EGCS 45
2000	Landlord and Tenant
	On the renewal of a lease, the landlord asked that the tenant be required to provide an authorised guarantor. The tenant proposed one be required only where it was reasonable to do so. Held: The tenant's proposal was preferred.

Craven Builders Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Health [2000] 1 EGLR 128
2000 Neuberger J	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered the measure of damages for a tenant's failure to comply with his covenant to repair where the premises did have redevelopment potential but a purchaser would still pay more if the premises were in a good state of repair. Neuberger J said: "In a case where the landlord has carried out the works or clearly intends to carry out the works then the cost of the works is, or at the very least can be, prima facie evidence of the diminution in value. However in a case where the landlord has not carried out the works, and there is no evidence that he intends to carry them out, then the cost of the works is of no assistance. One cannot say that a costed schedule of dilapidations of itself, in the absence of any other evidence, constitutes even prima facie evidence of the diminution in the value of the reversion, let alone that there is any sort of prima face evidence of the actual diminution."
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)

Inntrepreneur Pub Co -v- East Crown Ltd [2000] 3 EGLR 31; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 11
2000 Lightman J	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap
	The "entire agreement" clause contained in a lease not only had the effect of rendering evidence of an alleged collateral warranty inadmissible, but also deprived the warranty of all legal effect. It did not collapse the lease in on itself. Lightman J said: "The purpose of an entire agreement clause is to preclude a party to a written agreement from threshing through the undergrowth and finding in the course of negotiations some (chance) remark or statement (often long forgotten or difficult to recall or explain) on which to found a claim such as the present to the existence of a collateral warranty. The entire agreement clause obviates the occasion for any such search and the peril to the contracting parties posed by the need which may arise in its absence to conduct such a search. For such a clause constitutes a binding agreement between the parties that the full contractual terms are to be found in the document containing the clause and not elsewhere, and that accordingly any promises or assurances made in the course of the negotiations (which in the absence of such a clause might have effect as a collateral warranty) shall have no contractual force, save insofar as they are reflected and given effect in that document. The operation of the clause is not to render evidence of the collateral warranty inadmissible in evidence as is suggested in Chitty on Contract 28th ed. Vol 1 para 12–102: it is to denude what would otherwise constitute a collateral warranty of legal effect." Lightman J continued: "In neither case was it necessary to decide whether the clause would have been sufficient if it had been worded merely to state that the agreement containing it comprised or constituted the entire agreement between the parties. That is the question raised in this case, where the formula of words used in the clause is abbreviated to an acknowledgement by the parties that the Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between them. In my judgment that formula is sufficient, for it constitutes an agreement that the full contractual terms to which the parties agree to bind themselves are to be found in the Agreement and nowhere else and that what might otherwise constitute a side agreement or collateral warranty shall be void of legal effect. That can be the only purpose of the provision."
	Law of eroperty (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1)

Regina, Ex Parte Spath Holme Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and The Regions, Secretary of State For Wales
20 Jan 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Administrative	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Regulations made to ease the effect of changes on the calculation of registered rents were ultra vires and void. The Act under which they were made was intended to control inflation. The purpose of these regulations was to ease the effect on protected tenants of decisions which would lead to rent increases.
	Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 (1999 No 6)

Target Home Loans Ltd -v- Iza Ltd
20 Jan 2000 CC	Landlord and Tenant, Land
	(Central London County Court) The bank recovered possession of leasehold premises. The landlord served a notice requiring repairs on the tenant, but refused to allow the mortgage in possession a key to enter the property. They then claimed to have recovered possession peacefully. The bank applied for relief from forfeiture and succeeded. The notice was pointlessly served on the tenant who no longer had access to carry out any repairs, and the counter-notice was effective.
	Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938

Barrett and others -v- Morgan [2000] 2 WLR 285; [2000] UKHL 1; [2000] 2 AC 264; [2000] 1 All ER 481
27 Jan 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Millett	Landlord and Tenant, Agriculture	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual nature of the deal, it was not in law a surrender. Sub-tenants had no protection in such situations. The lacuna was recognised, but parliament had done nothing to provide any such protection. "I reject the proposition that the service of a notice to quit by either party by pre-arrangement with the other is "a consensual transaction which is tantamount to a surrender" since unlike a surrender it does not need the consent of the recipient to be effective. The proposition that such a transaction is incapable of determining a sub-tenancy is not tenable and does not gain by the substitution of the pejorative word "collusive" for the word "consensual". "
	Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
	Link[s] omitted

VCS Car Park Management -v- Regional Railways North East Ltd [1999] EGCS 136
27 Jan 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	The opposition of a landlord to the renewal of a tenancy was not defeated by it being shown that his interest in the freehold had been acquired within the five year period, where the landlord had also had a continuous series of interests in the property or that other members of the same holding group had had such interests.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(2)

Ultraworth Ltd -v- General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation [2000] EWHC Technology 172; [2000] L & TR 495; [2000] 2 EGLR 115; [2000] EG 19
27 Jan 2000 TCC Richard Hevery QC J	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Lansdowne Tutors Ltd -v- Younger
27 Jan 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	Companies with shareholdings owned by the same individual granted one to the other an agreement which was deemed to be a protected interest as a lease of the premises. Eventually the landlord company served a notice to quit on the tenant company which appeared to have been accepted. Nevertheless later the tenant company resisted possession being given. It was held that common ownership did not destroy the effect of the various acts which included acts unequivocally consistent with a surrender.

Highland and Universal Properties Limited -v- Safeway Properties Limited [2000] ScotCS 28
1 Feb 2000 IHCS Lord President	Landlord and Tenant, Scotland
	In a case where a lease imposes a sufficiently precise 'keep open' clause, it might well be enforced by way of a specific implement. The Scottish order would not carry the same potential penalties as in England, but such orders had not created great problems. The wording of the order would also have to be precise to support as far as possible the need for clarity if it was to be enforced. The pursuer should not be restricted to a payment of damages.
	Link[s] omitted

Gatwick Parking Service Ltd -v- Sargent [2000] EG 11; [2000] 2 EGLR 45
3 Feb 2000 CA Aldous LJ, Laws LJ, Hale LJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	When a landlord opposed a renewal of a business tenancy, the court must allow for changes in planning policy which affected the parties. Planning permission had originally been subject to a condition that it be used not by the claimant but by a tenant. That condition had been imposed under a policy which had now changed. It was likely that the condition would disappear, and that accordingly the landlord would be likely to be able to use the land for its own purposes. The landlord did not need to show only an even chance that the permission might be granted. He needed to show a real rather than merely fanciful chance. Laws LJ: "On balance, in my view, the learned judge should have acceded to the appellant's case in June 1999, and was influenced, as it seems to me, by his impressions, wholly adverse as they were, of Mr Kenny as a witness. I am entirely clear that we are now entitled to take account of the July 1999 planning permission: see Accountancy Personnel Ltd v Salters' Company [1972] EGD 461. Obviously, that was not available to the judge in June 1999." and "I emphasise that the hurdle to be surmounted by the appellant under section 30(1)(g), in the light of the authorities on the subject, is by no means a high one. He does not have to demonstrate a balance of probability that permission will be granted. He has to show that there is a real, not merely a fanciful, chance."
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30 (1) (g)

Ashworth Frazer Ltd -v- Gloucester City Council
3 Feb 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A landlord could not refuse to consent to an assignment because of a belief, even if reasonably based, that the intended use by the prospective assignee would be a breach of covenant under the lease. That did not mean that a landlord could not after giving consent, later insist fully on compliance with the covenant by the incoming tenant. Three principles govern refusing consent are: is the reason unconnected with the relationship of landlord and tenant, if not the court asks whether it is reasonable in the particular circumstances, and last, it is for the landlord to establish that his refusal is reasonable.

Anthony Wroe (T/a Telepower) -v- Exmos Cover Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 31
8 Feb 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Equity
	A licensee was in occupation of premises under an agreement which clearly denied the intention to create a tenancy. He refused to leave when requesting asserting that he was a tenant. Mistaking the law the landlord treated the occupier as a tenant and sought possession as such. Held: The court refused jurisdiction, and the landlord was not to be estopped from returning to his assertion that the occupier was a mere licensee. There was no evidence that the occupier had relied upon any assertion that a tenancy existed to his detriment.
	Link[s] omitted

The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District -v- Palacegate Properties Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 33; [2000] 13 EG 187
9 Feb 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	A prospective landlord and tenant applied to have the proposed tenancy excluded from security of tenure. The draft appended to the application had blanks for the dates, and a break clause. Held: The intention was to demonstrate the parties understanding of what they might be losing by way of security, and that the lease need only be substantially of the same form as the draft. In addition the break clause did not prevent the lease being for a term certain. The lease was excluded from security depite the break clause.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 38 (4)
	Link[s] omitted

Dearman -v- Simpletest Ltd
14 Feb 2000 CA	Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant
	Notes in the White Book were procedural rather than black letter law, and a claim for possession was not to be defeated only because the claimant had failed to join in all the parties listed in the note. Such notes were intended to be of assistance to practitioners, and not to create a compulsory requirement.

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 69
14 Feb 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Kathleen Saigol -v- Cranley Mansion Ltd and Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 52
23 Feb 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	The respondent had had a successful life, and was tenant of a valuable apartment in the freehold block owned and managed by the appellant company. Substantial refurbishments had been badly handled by a trainee surveyor. There was a dispue with the builder who walked off the site. The work was wrongly certified as complete. Both partes had ended up insolvent. Part of the works was a chimney which later collapsed making the flat uninhabitable. Held: The judge had found the claimant to have been truthful and the case was decided accordingly. Appeal denied.
	[ Bailii ]

Eyre and others -v- Mccracken [2000] EWCA Civ 501; (2000) 80 P&CR 220
10 Mar 2000 CA Pill LJ, Hale LJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court considered the tenant's covenant to repair in the context of a need for a damp course: "I have regard to the age, (over 150 years) and the design of the building. It has no damp-proof course. … I bear in mind the limited interest of the tenant and the poor condition of the premises … when the term started. It is common ground that it would be sensible to put in a damp-proof course. … In my judgment, to require the tenant to insert a damp-proof course … would be to require him to give back to the landlord a different thing from that [originally] demised to him… The circumstances are very different from those involved in the consideration of the landlord's covenant in Elmcroft Developments." Hale LJ said that the question of whether "admittedly sensible works fall within [a] particular repairing covenant" was "in every case a matter of fact and degree", depending also on the wording of the covenant in question.
	Link[s] omitted

Willingale -v- Global Grange Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 55
13 Mar 2000 CA Waller LJ, May LJ	Landlord and Tenant, Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	The tenants of a block of flats issued a notice wanting to purchase the freehold at a price. The landlord failed to serve the appropriate counter-notice, and the tenants applied to court. The landlord asked the court to exercise its discretion to award greater compensation. The court, and the appeal court declined. There was no discretion as to the terms of the sale in the absence of a counter-notice, despite the use of the word 'may' in the section: "may" in section 47(1) meant "must".
	Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 13
	Link[s] omitted

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 70
14 Mar 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Hyde Park Residence Ltd -v- Secretary of State for et Environment Transport and the Regions and Another
14 Mar 2000 CA	Constitutional, Planning, Landlord and Tenant
	An Act might include a power to amend another by secondary legislation, but any such power must be construed narrowly. The owners of property sought to change its use from long term residential use to a use for short term visitors. S25 of the main Act remained unaffected by subsequent secondary legislation.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 172 - Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 25

Botu -v- London Borough of Brent
16 Mar 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	The secure tenant was sentenced to imprisonment. In the absence of the tenant, and payment of his rent, the landlord authority obtained an order for possession which was not suspended. On release the tenant had the order set aside, but the house had been relet. He claimed damages for breach of the covenant for quiet possession, and was awarded those from a certain date. On appeal the order was set aside. The authority in relating had acted properly under an order of the court.

North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 71
20 Mar 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 72
23 Mar 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	[ Bailii ]

Shepping and another -v- Osada
23 Mar 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Housing
	The time limit on the recovery of possession of property subject to a tenancy to within one year of the landlord becoming aware of the death of the tenant required proceedings to have been issued within the year. The service of the notice requiring possession did not satisfy the requirement which was strictly for proceedings.
	Housing Act 1988 Sch2 Part 1 Ground 7

Crawford -v- Clarke
23 Mar 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	The tenants had carried out certain works, but had failed to complete them and were served with s146 notices requiring them to complete the works. The works were not completed and the property was forfeited. Relief against forfeiture was granted on condition that the tenant complied with schedules for the works. He failed and was granted relief and again failed. The judge awarded possession resulting in a windfall for the landlord. An appeal failed since the judge had exercised a discretion which was only rarely to be interfered with.

Hurst -v- Bryk and others [2000] UKHL 19; [2000] 2 All ER 193
30 Mar 2000 HL	Company, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where other partners committed a fundamental breach of their duties as partners, that did not release the innocent partner from existing obligations of the partnership, nor from the debts of the partnership on dissolution or even accruing after dissolution. His acceptance of the repudiatory breach by his partners could not alter his duties to others. The doctrines of repudiation could not award him either an indemnity from his former partners.
	Partnership Act 1890
	Link[s] omitted

Brent London Borough Council -v- Botu
30 Mar 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	In the absence of a secure tenant, and payment of his rent, the landlord authority obtained an order for possession which was not suspended. On release the tenant had the order set aside, but the house had been relet. He claimed damages for breach of the covenant for quiet possession, and was awarded those from a certain date. On appeal the order was set aside. The authority in relating had acted properly under an order of the court.

Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club Ltd -v- Pope [2000] 22 EG 147; [2000] 1 WLR 1941; [2000] EWCA Civ 425
6 Apr 2000 CA Morritt LJ, Waller LJ, Tucker LJ	Housing, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	The tenant sought to assert that he occupied a houseboat, the Dinty Moore, under a tenancy of a dwellinghouse under the 1988 Act. The claimant appealed a decision that it was. Held: A house-boat, even though used as a dwelling, did not have the character of a house sufficiently to allow an assured tenancy of it to arise. This could only happen if the boat itself became affixed to the land so as to become part of it. In this case the boat would float for several hours each day as the tide rose, and the boat could quite easily be moved to a different mooring. It was a chattel and was not inherently capable of becoming real property.
	Housing Act 1988
	Link[s] omitted

Aylwen -v- Takla [2000] EWCA Civ 108
6 Apr 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Limitation
	The parties disputed ownership of a box room used with an apartment.
	Link[s] omitted

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 73
7 Apr 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Standard Life Company Ltd -v- Greycoat Devonshire Square Ltd
10 Apr 2000 ChD	Landlord and Tenant
	A clause in a lease which reserved rent and additional contributions to the fees and other sums payable to the tenant by virtue of his occupation did not mean that the tenant had to pay on part of sums received by him arising from the dilapidations of a sub-tenant. The definition was of 'the aggregate of all rents fees and other moneys from whatever source … (payable) by virtue of its estate or interest.' The sum was compensation for damage to the property and was not derived from the estate in the land.

Sears Properties Netherlands Bv -v- Coal Pension Properties Limited [2000] ScotCS 103
11 Apr 2000 SCS Lord Eassie	Scotland, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

London Baggage Company -v- Railtrack Plc (No. 1) [2000] EWHC 459 (Ch)
17 Apr 2000 ChD	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

North Western (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 74
17 Apr 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Harvey Michaels and Valentina Michaels -v- Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, Taylor Woodrow Property Company Ltd, Frogmore Estates Plc, Harley House (Marylebone) Ltd [2000] EWHC Ch 178; [2001] Ch 493
19 Apr 2000 ChD Justice Laddie	Landlord and Tenant, Torts - Other	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell. Held: The 1987 Act did not confer a right to pre-emption as such. Having gone through the procedure the landlord could still sell elsewhere. He was not under an obligation to disclose every term of the proposed disposal. The Act does not allow a right to claim damages for breach of statutory duty. The Act had provided for a remedy for a failure to serve a correct notice, and the second action was itself an abuse of process.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
	Link[s] omitted

Manel and Others -v- Memon [2000] 2 EGLR 40
20 Apr 2000 CA Nourse LJ	Landlord and Tenant, Housing	Casemap 1 Citers
	A landlord gave notice to quit to a tenant subject to an assured shorthold tenancy. Held: The notice did not include the instructions and advice required by the Regulations, and so could not be said to be substantially in the same form. The notice was accordingly invalid. It had been quite wrong of the judge to continue to deal with the matter under the accelerated possession procedure without the opportunity for the tenant to make his case, when it had been made clear that possible grounds of objection existed. The court should ask: (Nourse LJ) “What, then, is the substance of a notice under section 20? Its essential purpose is to tell the proposed tenant that the tenancy is to be an assured shorthold tenancy, with the consequences specified in paras 2 and 3 of the Form 7, in particular that “the landlord may have the right to repossession if he wants.” Although we are now familiar with the notion that an assured shorthold tenancy gives the tenant a very limited security of tenure, that would not have been the case in 1988.” The court remarked on the importance of the presence on the form of the reference to advice, including legal advice, and the statement that the giving of the notice did not commit the tenant to take the tenancy.
	Housing Act 1988 20 - Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 194) - Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 2203)

Taj -v- Ali
28 Apr 2000 CA	Housing, Landlord and Tenant
	A tenant was in very substantial arrears, but succeeded in having a claim for failure to repair set off against them leaving thirteen thousand pounds outstanding. The judge ordered possession but suspended it on terms which would require the arrears to be paid off over 55 years. The landlord's appeal succeeded. The judge had already allowed for the landlord's delay in acting, and such an order could only be made where the tenant had a prospect of paying off the arrears within a reasonable and definite time.

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 75
4 May 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Firle Investments Ltd -v- Datapoint International Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 105
8 May 2000 TCC Colin Reese QC	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	The landlord sought damages for the breach by the tenant of his covenant to repair, and claimed inter alia the estimated costs of repair as set out in a schedule of dilapidations. The tenant claimed there was no damage because the real value of the property was for redeveloment, and works for that purpose would render any repairs worthless. Held: " Expressing the essence of the general principle in my own words, I would put it this way: If none of the repairs could realistically be expected to survive the refurbishment or if only such an insignificant proportion could be expected to survive as to fall within the "de minimis" concept, it is difficult to see how the value of the landlord's interest at the term date would have been in any way diminished by reason of the disrepair. Equally, whenever some not insignificant part or parts of the repairs could realistically be expected to survive the refurbishment, it seems fairly obvious (a) that the value of the landlord's interest at the term date is likely to be to some extent diminished by reason of the disrepair and (b) that the extent of the diminution is likely to be related to the value of the repairs that could realistically be expected to survive ("the survival items") and whatever (if any) reduction in the time required for refurbishment was to be expected if those repairs had been carried out by the tenant before the term date.""
	Landlord and Teant Act 1927 18
	Link[s] omitted

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 76
12 Jun 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	[ Bailii ]

Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd -v- The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons [2000] EWHC Technology 84
29 Jun 2000 TCC	Insolvency, Company, Litigation Practice, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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. The new CPR rules disapplied old assumptions, and the overriding objective should apply. An interim payment was ordered limited to reflect the risk of a failure to secure recovery in the case of a failure of the action.
	[ Bailii ]

Ernest John Fifield and Another -v- W and R Jack Limited [2000] UKPC 27; Appeal No 11 of 1999
29 Jun 2000 PC Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Mr. Justice Henry	Commonwealth, Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	PC (New Zealand) The tenants sought an extension of time to take their rent review to arbitration. The Landlords appealed a grant of leave. Held: The grant of leave was discretionary where the court found undue hardship. The appeal was dismissed. The appellants conduct was consistent only with having foregone their right to insist on strict compliance with the time limit imposed.
	Link[s] omitted

Welsh -v- Greenwich London Borough Council (2001) 33 HLR 40
6 Jul 2000 CA	Housing, Landlord and Tenant	1 Citers
	A flat had been let without heating. The tenant complained at the consequent damp and condensation. The authority claimed it was not obliged to put the property into a better condition under a clause saying it agreed 'to maintain the dwelling in good condition and repair' and there was no structural damage. The tenant had not been legally advised and the tenancy was a social one. Held: The words were to be taken in a non technical way, and could include an obligation to take steps to prevent the mould and condensation, if necessary by way of heating. The failure to provide insulation or lining allowed excessive condensation and mould. The council had failed to maintain the flat in good condition.

Forebury Estates Ltd -v- Chiltern Thames and Eastern Rent Assessment Panel (Chairman) and Others
6 Jul 2000 QBD	Landlord and Tenant
	The appellant was unhappy with rent assessments, and complained in particular that the committee had taken account of the local authority housing register when setting the rent. The court found that the committee was right to refer to the list, but should do so with care and only indirectly. The presence or absence of the local authority housing would have an effect on the rents payable within an area.

Daejan Properties Ltd -v- Bloom
13 Jul 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	An underlessee covenanted to pay a reasonable proportion of the cost of repairing walls and 'other conveniences' A slab and asphalt membrane had been laid which led to an ingress of water. The under lease clearly anticipated a wide liability in respect of all items of repair. The word 'conveniences' had been intended to operate as a catch-all, and the under-tenant must contribute.

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 77
18 Jul 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Basch -v- Stekel and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 3033; [2001] L&TR 1; (2001) 81 P&CR DG1
25 Jul 2000 CA Chadwick LJ, Buxton LJ	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The deceased had given a guarantee of the tenant's covenant given by his company under a lease. The court was asked whether the obligations under the guarantee survived his death after he company was wound up. Held: Chadwick LJ explained the Hindcastle case: "Lord Nicholls explained in Hindcastle v. Barbara Attenborough why the former practice [of including a put option in a guarantee] was unnecessary. He pointed out that the operation of section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is limited by the provisions in paragraph (b) of subsection (4). The disclaimer takes effect under the section only in so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the insolvent company from liability. The disclaimer does not affect the rights and liabilities of other persons, in particular persons such as a surety or an original tenant. Nevertheless, the tenancy, itself, does cease to exist as an estate in the land demised by the lease. The relationship of landlord and tenant is preserved notionally for the purposes only of giving rise to an obligation on the surety or other third parties."
	Link[s] omitted

Adams and Another -v- Rhymney Valley District Council [2001] 33 HLR 41; [2000] 3 EGLR 25; (2001) 3 LGLR 9; [2001] PNLR 4; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 777
3 Aug 2000 CA Morritt, Sedley LL,	Negligence, Torts - Other, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The landlord housing authority replaced windows with double glazing with locks on the windows with removable keys. Two children died in a fire in the house being unable to escape through the windows. The authority was not liable in negligence. They had followed the current standard practice in fitting the windows with locks of this type.
	Link[s] omitted

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 78
8 Aug 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	[ Bailii ]

Knapdale (Nominees) Ltd -v- Donald and Another
22 Aug 2000 OHCS	Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant
	Despite the requirement for statutory notices, an agricultural tenancy could be terminated by an implied agreement for surrender. Nevertheless, a formal lease to a partnership was not to be deemed to be surrendered on the death of one partner, where the lease had been entered into in circumstances which suggested that the tenants did not appreciate technical the legal significance of the documents.
	Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 21(1)

Fivecourts Ltd -v- R Leisure Development Co Ltd [2001] L&TR 47
7 Sep 2000 QBD	Landlord and Tenant
	The tenant took on derelict premises subject to a full repairing covenant. It sublet part to a subsidiary company, but failed repeatedly to comply with agreed schedules for the works of repair and embodied in consent orders. It sought relief from forfeiture arguing that the court had power to alter consent orders against the wishes of one party. It was held that the power to alter a consent order applied in exceptional circumstances only, and that the sub-tenant should not be allowed to apply from relief where this thrust on the landlord a tenant he had not agreed to.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1925 146

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 79
11 Sep 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

London (1967 Act Decisions) [2000] EWLVT 80
11 Sep 2000 LVT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise
12 Oct 2000 ChD	Landlord and Tenant, VAT
	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.
	VAT Regulations 1995/2518 - Value Added Tax Act 1994

Regina -v- London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Ex Parte Daejan Properties Ltd
20 Oct 2000 QBD	Landlord and Tenant
	Tenants under long leases sought to recover service charges which had been paid over many years, but which they had come to consider unreasonable. The landlords resisted the claim for repayment saying the Tribunal had no power to make an order when the charges had been paid. The tribunal also said that a limitation period of twelve years applied. On appeal the court said that the intention of the Act had been to widen the scope for such claims, and it would be unhelpful and unjustified to restrict the word 'payable' to future payments. It was not for the Tribunal to consider the limitation question.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Housing Act 1985 - Housing Act 1996

Pickles -v- Greenbank [2000] EWCA Civ 264
20 Oct 2000 CA	Agriculture, Landlord and Tenant	1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where a tenancy had to be valued following a dissolution of the partnership to whom the tenancy had been granted and assignment by consent to one of the former partners, the valuation was to be as on a sale on the open market. A proper assessment had to be made of the evidence as at the date of assignment, and the judge could take a realistic view of what would be the intentions of both landlord and tenant toward the tenancy, and how those intentions might affect the open market valuation. The value was not the amount the tenant would have been prepared to accept for the tenancy, but how much he would have been prepared to offer to buy it.
	Link[s] omitted

Cadogan Estates Limited -v- McMahon [2000] 3 WLR 1555; [2000] UKHL 52; [2001] 1 EGLR 47
26 Oct 2000 HL Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Millett	Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Insolvency	Casemap 1 Cites
	When a tenancy was terminated and was followed by a statutory tenancy, a term in the contractual tenancy that the tenancy should be forfeit on the tenant's bankruptcy was continued in and inherited by the statutory tenancy. Though perhaps in conveyancing terms there was no positive obligation not to become bankrupt, the Acts should be interpreted in the context of the legislation as a whole. There was no reason in principle to distinguish between forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and a proviso for re-entry on insolvency. "The Rent Acts were enacted in haste and in places badly drafted, and have greatly perplexed judges of the greatest distinction over many decades . . . But unless the words used are inconsistent with the policy of the Acts they must be given their natural meaning. Since the proviso for re-entry has no possible application to a statutory tenancy, there is no policy reason to distinguish between a statutory tenancy which follows the determination of a contractual tenancy which contains such a proviso and a statutory tenancy which follows the determination of one which does not. "
	Rent Act 1977
	Link[s] omitted

Jephson Homes Housing Association -v- Moisejevs and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 271; [2001] 23 EGLR 14; [2001] 41 EG 186; [2001] 2 All ER 901
1 Nov 2000 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown And Lord Justice Rix	Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She was assisted in this misapprehension neither by the Court nor by the landlord. Their behaviour could not properly be described as oppressive. It was not clear, in this context, what was meant by 'oppressive'. The applicant had not in this case been misled. Once it is concluded that there is no oppression, there is no inherent power in the court to set aside the eviction. The Rules did not require notice to be given of an intention to aply for a warrant for possession. Though a failure to give notice might be oppressive conduct, it was not in this case.
	Link[s] omitted

Ali Bhai and Another -v- Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 276
2 Nov 2000 CA Kennedy LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ	Landlord and Tenant, Housing	Casemap 1 Cites
	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. After the grant of the tenancy, the Association had changed in status from being fully mutual. Held: The tenant's appeal succeeded. A tenancy from a mutual housing association created in 1985 was neither protected nor secure, and the Housing Act 1985 did not alter that status. However the later Act did operate, when the association converted from its mutual status, to change the tenancy to a secure tenancy, and that in turn gave the tenant a right to buy. The conversion led to the 'landlord condition' becoming fulfilled. Jonathan Parker LJ said: "paragraph 4(a) in my judgment provides a saving for existing tenancies in respect of which, immediately prior to the commencement date, the "landlord condition" was satisfied (so that they were secure tenancies), but in respect of which the "landlord condition" would otherwise have ceased to be satisfied as from the commencement date, by virtue of the repeals: e.g. a tenancy where the landlord immediately before the commencement date was a non-mutual association. The saving is achieved not by providing that such tenancies shall continue as secure tenancies until such time as the non-mutual association disposes of its interest to an authority or body which is not included in the amended list, for that would be inconsistent with the "ambulatory" nature of the statutory code. Rather, the saving is achieved by preserving the unamended "landlord condition" in relation to such a tenancy, so that it will be a secure tenancy at any time in the future when the interest of the landlord belongs to an authority or body within the unamended section 80 (e.g. a non-mutual association)."
	Housing Act 1985 - Local Government and Housing Act 1989 - Housing Act 1988 sch18 p4(a)
	Link[s] omitted

Hallisey -v- Petmoor Developments Ltd
7 Nov 2000 ChD	Landlord and Tenant
	The landlord had reserved to himself responsibility for repair of the fabric of the building. The top floor included demises of roof gardens, but the same roof gardens necessarily played a considerable part in protecting the tenants from rain and the elements. In the circumstances therefore, the landlord remained responsible for repairs to the roof terrace gardens.

Eaton Square Properties Ltd -v- O'Higgins
16 Nov 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	The tenant of residential premises under a long lease was in possession, but had not taken a formal assignment. The landlord granted an underlease to a company whose ownership it shared with the tenant. This would allow the company to reclaim tax. On expiry of the underlease the landlord claimed possession. The tenant alleged that the underlease was a sham. However the underlease had been treated by all parties as effective. The company had become the tenant, and the possession order was upheld.

Rosen -v- Trustees of Camden Charities [2000] EWCA Civ 298
30 Nov 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	For the purposes of the Act, the original construction of a house could not to be considered as "any improvement", which could be disregarded when calculating the amount payable by enfranchising tenants for the transfer of the freehold. The definition made it clear that premises could not exist apart from a house, and therefore a new house built on the site was not the improvement a house, but the provision of one. This interpretation accorded with the clear purpose of the amendments to the Act.
	Leasehold Reform Act 1967
	Link[s] omitted

Brent London Borough Council -v- Patel and Another
30 Nov 2000 ChD	Landlord and Tenant, Planning, Housing
	An improvement grant made in respect of a house in multiple occupation, became repayable in whole, where the owner of the freehold took up residence in any part of the property. In applying for the grant the owner certified that part of the property would be available for active to someone not a family member. The certificates were confusing, but the words of the section did not allow the possibility of the landlord occupying any part of the house either himself or through a member of his own family.
	Local Government and Housing Act 1989 122, 106(7)

Regina -v- Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others (2001) 33 HLR 18
1 Dec 2000 CA Latham LJ	Housing, Landlord and Tenant	1 Cites
	Where a local authority had to decide whether temporary housing was suitable for a family who had applied under the homelessness provisions, the location of the short-term housing was relevant. In this case, a London authority, placing a family in accommodation in Great Yarmouth, failed in its statutory duty, because the result of that placement would be to interrupt the education and medical care of the children of the family. The date when a former shorthold tenant became homeless, was the date of execution of the warrant for possession, not the date on which possession was ordered to be given. Latham LJ said that the provision was for the protection of other housing authorities as much as applicants: "there is a clear and sensible purpose to be served by the section, namely to ensure so far as possible that authorities do not simply decant homeless persons into other areas for which other authorities are responsible. There are significant consequences on a host authority, for example, by way of social service provision, which are obviously detrimental to the host authority and as to which Parliament could properly consider that they require protection."
	Housing Act 1996 175

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions and another, ex parte Spath Holme Limited [2000] UKHL 61; [2001] 2 AC 349; [2001] 1 All ER 195; [2001] 2 WLR 15; (2001) 33 HLR 31
7 Dec 2000 HL Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead	Landlord and Tenant, Housing, Constitutional	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The section in the 1985 Act created a power to prevent rent increases for tenancies of dwelling-houses for purposes including the alleviation of perceived hardship. Accordingly the Secretary of State could issue regulations whose effect was to limit the maximum amount of rent in the proper exercise of that discretionary power. The Act as a whole was intended to strengthen the rights of tenants, and to protect tenants against various forms of potential disadvantage or exploitation. In interpreting statutes, it is important for the conditions in Pepper v Hart to be strictly followed. It was not legitimate to have regard to a ministerial statement to elucidate not the meaning of a provision but the scope of a statutory power. Nevertheless there was nothing in that case to restrict the nature of the ambiguity or obscurity which might allow reference to parliamentary materials to support interpretation. Lord Nicholls said: "Statutory interpretation is an exercise which requires the court to identify the meaning borne by the words in question in the particular context. The task of the court is often said to be to ascertain the intention of Parliament expressed in the language under consideration. This is correct and may be helpful so long as it is remembered that the "intention of Parliament" is an objective concept, not subjective. The phrase is a shorthand reference to the intention which the court reasonably imputes to Parliament in respect of the language used. It is not the subjective intention of the minister or other persons who promoted the legislation. Nor is the subjective intention of the draftsman, or of individual members or even a majority of individual members of either House. These individuals will often have widely varying intentions. Their understanding of the legislation and of the words used may be impressively complete or woefully inadequate. Thus, when the courts say that such-and-such a meaning "cannot be what Parliament intended", they are saying only that the words under consideration cannot reasonably be taken as used by Parliament with that meaning."
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 31 - Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999
	Link[s] omitted

Hanina -v- Morland
7 Dec 2000 CA	Land, Landlord and Tenant
	The respondent was tenant of premises with exclusive access to an area of the roof which had been used by her for leisure purposes. The freeholder objected, and she claimed that the use was in the nature of an easement which had passed to her under the section when she took a transfer of the lease. The right she claimed was an exclusive and unrestricted one. The section could not include such a right in the grant of the lease. However since she had the only access, nominal damages were substituted.
	Law of Property Act 1925 62

UYCF Limited (Formerly Night Trunkers (London) Limited) -v- Christopher and Penelope Anne Forrester [2000] EWCA Civ 317
8 Dec 2000 CA	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Hussein Walji, Zulikar Walji, Mohammed Iqbal Walji, Hussain Walji -v- Mount Cook Land Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 356
21 Dec 2000 CA Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Charles	Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites
	The claimants sought a new lease under the Act. They were assignees and sureties of an underlease of the premises, but a new underlease had been taken by a company through which the partnership had intended to trade. The partnership had paid rent in response to demands sent to the company. The company had been struck off. A new lease was agreed, but the renewal procedure continued. Held: A tenancy, or lease, is an interest in land springing from a consensual arrangement between two parties: one person grants to another the right to possession of land for a lesser term than he, the grantor, has in the land. The parties had negotiated and agreed terms. Possession continued under the new arrangement despite being formally subject to lease. A quarterly tenancy had been created.
	Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
	Link[s] omitted

Maryland Estates Ltd -v- Campana Court Ltd LRA/21/2000; LRA/21/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Doreen P M Loder Dyer -v- The Right Honourable Charles G J Earl Cadogan LRA/2&4/2000; LRA/2&4/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

E K Ellis -v- R A Dines v Olga Logothetis LRA/3/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

The Tenants of Langford Court -v- Doren Ltd LRX/37/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Howard De Walden Estates Ltd -v- Adam Von Dioszeghy LRA/9/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Earl Cadogan & Anor -v- Dr Mark R Cecil LRA/10/2000; LRA/10/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Victor F Hyde -v- Mallow Properties Ltd LRA/22/2000; LRA/22/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Abacona Investments Ltd -v- Ann E Wright & Others LRA/23/2000; LRA/23/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

The Trustees of the Calthorpe Estate LRA/44/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

West Hampstead Managment Company Ltd -v- Pearl Property Ltd LRA/48/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Adrian JR Langinger -v- The Earl of Cadogan Estates Ltd LRA/46/2000; LRA/46/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

St Mary's Mansions Ltd -v- J Iannaccone & Others LRX/11/2000; LRX/11/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

Barrington Court Developments Ltd -v- Barrington Court Residents Association LRX/65/2000; LRX/65/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted

George Evis & Godfrey Richard Smith -v- Commission for New Towns ACQ/125-7/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land, Damages, Landlord and Tenant
	LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - disturbance payment – Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 – business premises acquired by authority with compulsory purchase powers – land later developed by company with lease from authority – entitlement to compensation under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s 37 – whether such entitlement precludes compensation under 1973 Act s 37(1)(a) – whether fact that development not carried out by authority precludes compensation under s 37(1)(c) – held compensation under s 37(1)(a) not precluded but no entitlement under s 37(1)(c)
	Land Compensation Act 1973 37
	[ LT ]

Stein -v- Trustees of the Eyre Estate LRA/11/00; LRA/11/00
31 Dec 2000 LT	Landlord and Tenant
	Link[s] omitted