Archive for November 2005
C successfully appealed a suspended possession order made against D, the tenant, who lived with her three children. C had obtained an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) against D’s son who acted in breach of the order and caused C to bring possession proceedings for breach of tenancy in causing nuisance or harrassing neighbours. CA held that the lower court had erred in finding there was hope of some sort of improvement in the son to justify a suspended order and had failed adequately to take into account the effect of the ASBO on H’s neighbours as required by the Housing Act 1985 s85A. In the absence of any remorse or well founded expectation of improvement, an immediate possession order was necessary and proportionate under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8 in order to protect the rights of the neighbours.
In order to rebut the presumption that time is not of the essence in rent review clauses there must be clear and explicit contra indications in the lease. The deeming provisions in the lease meant that such clear contra indications did not exist in this case.
C sought specific performance of an alleged contract with D for the sale of D’s flat. C wrote on two diary pages what he alleged was a binding contract for the sale of the flat. However, the claim failed as the disary pages did not comply with sec.2(1) of the Law of Property (Misc. Provisions) Act 1989 because neither page contained mutual obligations to buy and sell and the completion date was not specified in the diary pages.
The deprivation of land under the Limitation Act 1980 and the Land Registration Act 1925 was in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights. In this case the applicant had been deprived of property and received no compensation for the loss. It imposed a disproportionate and severe burden on the applicant.
The long lease Tenant failed in its appeal against a decision to award damages to the landlord in respect of losses suffered due to damage caused to property. Works had been carried out by the tenant to his flat, causing water to leak through the ceiling and cause damage to a flat below which the landlord had rented out on a shorthold tenancy. The Landlord was entitled to claim damages to recover the loss in rent payable by the tenant in the flat below as a result of the damage caused to the flat by the Tenant’s negligence.
C appealed against the decision that an agreement between C and D, the local authority, pursuant to which C erected and maintained large advertising displays at sites owned by D, created a licence rather than a tenancy. The appeal was unsuccessful, the CA holding that the locations of the displays were not precisely defined and it was therefore clear that there was no intention to grant exclusive possession to C and accordingly there was no tenancy.
R (on the application of Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited) v Lands Tribunal, CA, 8/11/05
Where the Lands Tribunal refused permission to appeal the decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal, this decision was subject to be judicial reviewed, but only where the decision was wrong in law and the error was sufficiently grave to be treated as exceptional.
Fitzroy House Epworth Street (No 1) Ltd & Anor v The Financial Times Ltd  EWHC 2391 (TCC) (04 November 2005)
A lease contained a break clause allowing the Defendant tenant to terminate so long as it had materially complied with its obligations under the lease. The dispute was whether there had been material compliance. It was held that not every defect had to be remedied. The standard of repair was of the reasonably minded tenant and a breach would only be material if it jeopardised the interests of the landlord.