Archive for October 2006
The court could infer from the estimated costs of repairs to a property, the diminution in the value of the reversion. Thus expert evidence as to the diminution in value for the purposes of calculating damages under section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 was not necessary.
In a case concerning a continuing nuisance the discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction should be exercised only in very exceptional circumstances. In the present case the nuisance concerned infringement of the right to light and an injunction should have been granted.
The occupiers of a property claimed adverse possession. Their claim failed because during the relevant 12 year period they had entered into a sham lease purporting to be with the owner of the land. This acknowledged the owner’s title to the property.
Where there was a landlord of a number of flats and a tenant and sub tenant of one of the flats, the maintenance charge levied by the tenant on the sub tenant was a “service charge” that fell within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and could be challenged in the Leaasehold Valuation Tribunal.
The Appellant Landlords unsuccessfully appealed against a decision awarding specific performance of an option to purchase contained in a tenancy agreement. The tenants had validly executed the same.