Archive for February 2005
C and D agreed to develop land and C was to obtain a percentage of the
proceeds of sale. C was induced by D to apply at his own expense for planning
permission and spent considerable time and money doing so. D claimed that no
agreement existed. C’s reliance on a non contractual promise led the court to hold that a proprietary estoppel arose as a result of D’s unconscionable behaviour. C was awarded a half share of the increased value of the property as a result of obtaining planning permission.
A failure by the Appellant landlord to demand rent arrears or service charges from a tenant could not amount to an acceptance of a surrender of the tenancy. In order for a landlord to accept at law a tenant’s surrender there would have to be unequivocal conduct by the parties.
The Respondents entered into a series of joint ventures with the Appellants’ predecessor
between 1989 and 1990. The property slump resulted in a shortfall between rental
income and re-mortgage payments. The Appellants’ predecessor failed to find the
shortfall. The Appellants were not entitled to enforce their beneficial rights as the
Respondents were entitled to rely upon the equitable defence of laches.
The Respondent landlord served on the tenant a trigger notice for a rent review some 54 weeks after the first review date. Despite being late there was no time limit by which a trigger notice had to be served and as time was not of the essence the notice was valid.