Archive for July 2005
The rationale behind the transitional protection given by s.34(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988, which provides for continued protected tenancy status, was that the protected tenant was a protected tenant at the time of commencement of the Act.
The court interpreted a right of way through an agricultural estate and in particular held that the right of way permitted the defendant, his invitees and lawful visitors access to go to the estate for purposes of a commercial shoot but not for the purpose of carrying out agricultural or forestry activity.
Landlord and Tenant: The appellants appealed against possession orders. The appellants breached suspended possession orders, remained in possession and became “tolerated trespassers”. The appellants claimed the landlords had waived the breaches and their tenancies had revived. The court held that a landlord could not waive breaches and revive a tenancy without a court order. Just because a tolerated trespasser remained in possession with the landlord’s consent does not generally lead to a new tenancy being created.
The Respondent and the Appellant’s predecessor in title had entered into a conveyance which anticipated the construction of a development, garage and roadway access to the garage. The development never took place. The court held that it could not be said there was a common intention that if the development did not take place the land would be used as a garage and it could not be implied that an immediate right of way existed along the road pursuant to the conveyance.
Mayor & Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London & Ors v Intercede 1765 Ltd & Anor  EWHC 1691 (Ch) (27 July 2005)
The Defendant sought to develop a building and the Claimant alleged it was in breach of a deed restricting the height of proposed buildings. The court held the development did not breach a height restriction as there was not a uniform horizontal restriction but angled building line needed to be taken into account.
Debenhams Retail Plc & Anor v Sun Alliance & London Assurance Company Ltd  EWCA Civ 868 (20 July 2005)
The CA allowed an appeal by the Appellant landlord in relation to the calculation of rent, which involved an issue as to whether VAT charged on goods sold to customers in the respondent’s department store should be included when calculating turnover for the purposes of assessing rent pursuant to the lease. The CA held that the inclusion of VAT would have given the Respondents an uncovenanted bonus.
The Appellants were found to be in adverse possession of land next to a public house of which they were tenants. The possessory title in the land vested in the Appellants’ landlord brewer as a tenant acquires possessory title for its landlord. The Respondent’s claim for possession therefore failed.
A school was closed in 1995 and the site was sold.The Claimants claimed to be beneficiaries of the proceeds of sale under the Reverter of Sites Act 1987. As the school had been used for the purpose of the education of poor persons within the definition of School Sites Act 1841 there had been no reverter of the site before the 1987 Act came into force.
The Appellant lessees succeeded in their appeal against the decision that notice had been served on them for the purposes of section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in relation to right of first refusal for the purchase of leases. The CA held that the concept of service required a formal and specific step and was not intended to refer to documents going out to the world at large.
It was obvious that a clause in a lease permitting the landlord to determine the lease by giving not less than six months notice was not conditional upon the tenant having performed its obligations under the lease. The clause had been mistakenly drafted and would be construed to make the landlord’s right to determine unconditional.