Archive for March 2005
The Appellant successfully appealed against a finding of adverse possession in relation to a strip of land to which the Respondent claimed to have acquired title. The CA found that the Respondent’s erection of a temporary fence with the intention of excluding itself from the strip amounted to an interruption of possession.
The Defendant trespasser was held not to have acquired possessory title to a field by virtue of 12 years continued trespass in accordance with section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925, as this was incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 Art.1.
The landlord gave the tenant notice to quit and the latter served both a counter-notice for tribunal proceedings and a notice for reference to arbitration. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 did not render invalid the counter-notice simply because it was served at the same time as a notice for arbitration.
The CA held that only in exceptional circumstances should an antisocial behaviour injunction under section 153A of the Housing Act 1996 be made without notice.
The Appellant tenants failed in their appeal against the dismissal of their claim that the landlord Respondent had served an invalid counter-notice in relation to collective enfranchisement. The Appellant maintained that the counter-notice proposed an unrealistically high price. The CA held that there was no requirement pursuant to section 21 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 that the landlord’s proposal be “realistic”. Only the lack of good faith could result in the invalidity of the counter-notice under the Act.
The CA allowed an appeal by the Appellant landlord that its decision to withhold consent to a proposed underletting was not made within a reasonable time, as this was not an uncomplicated transaction and further that the refusal itself was reasonable as the Appellant was entitled to take account of the position of the end of the lease in relation to which the expert evidence showed that the right of the sub-tenant to seek a new tenancy made a material difference to the value of the property.
The Appellants were gypsies who moved onto the Respondent’s land. The Respondent
brought possession proceedings and the Appellants claimed a breach of their human
rights pursuant to ECHR 1950 Art 8. Where there was a conflict between a decision of
the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the a possible
violation of Art 8, the court was bound to follow the decision of the House of Lords. In
the circumstances the Appellants could not rely on Art 8 and the Respondent was entitled
to possession of the land.
The different treatment of tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 whereby there was a different procedure for a tenant facing eviction for failure to maintain a holding and one who failed to improve it was not discriminatory within Art 14 of the ECHR 1950.
Where there was a rent review clause there was no presumption that the clause was exercisable by both landlord and tenant. The lease provided that only the landlord could exercise the right to a rent review. The fact that there was no upwards-only formula did not mean the court should construe the lease as allowing the tenant to call for a review.