Archive for November 2008
Admiral Taverns (Cygnet) Ltd v Daniel and another  EWHC 1688 (QB), and  EWCA Civ 1501.
We seem to have missed this important case when it was at High Court level. Sorry about that. An appeal against the High Court judgment has just been dismissed by the Court of Appeal and is now available online [...]
The Appeal by a home seller against an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a property granted in favour of the respondent purchaser was dismissed. The sale had proceeded by the home seller’s agent acting under oral authority. Until the equitable title in the property was transferred to the buyer from the seller, the contract for sale was nothing more than a contract to which normal rules of agency would apply.
Osibanjo v Seahive Investments Limited  EWCA Civ 1282 (Court of Appeal)
Are there circumstances in which a landlord can accept only part of a cheque offered by a tenant and thereby avoid waiving its right to forfeit? It would appear that there are, according to the Court of Appeal in this case which raises interesting questions [...]
There was no principle of law in adverse possession claims that only acts of possession by the paper owner carried out during a limited period after the claimed ouster that would or might serve to defeat the claim that there had been such an ouster. Such a proposition was contrary to principle.
This is another of the occasional cases on s.2(1) Leasehold Reform Act 1967 – the definition of a ‘house’ for the purposes of leasehold enfranchisement. Not strictly on point for Nearly Legal, but I enjoy them, so you get them…
Grosvenor Estates Ltd v Prospect Estates Ltd  EWCA Civ 1281 is a Court of Appeal [...]
The Appellant landlord appealed a decision that the Respondent tenant had the right as a tenant under a long lease to acquire the freehold of its building, because the building was at the date of service of notice of the claim a house “reasonably so called” within the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The judge had applied the proposition that circumstances would have to be such that nobody could reasonably call the building a house for a judge to hold that it was not a house. The appeal was allowed as the judge had applied the proposition without taking full account of all the relevant circumstances and had paid insufficient attention to the exceptional circumstance of prescribed and predominant office use which was the decisive feature of the case, not its design and appearance.
LB Wandsworth v Whibley  EWCA Civ 1259.
If a postponed possession order is made and the landlord takes the view that the conditions of postponement have been broken, the application for a date for possession should be conducted on a summary basis and only on the basis of evidence submitted by the landlord… or so [...]
Webb v Wandsworth LBC (Court of Appeal, November 12, 2008, extempore judgment and only noted in Arden Chambers Eflash 328)
Ms Webb was the secure tenant of LB Wandsworth. Between 2005 and 2006 her son was involved in a number of serious criminal and anti-social acts in the local area. In response, Wandsworth issued possession proceedings [...]
In what appears to be a good week for somewhat bizarre cases, may I present Carlos Allen v London Borough of Southwark  EWCA Civ 1478. This was an appeal by Mr Allen to the Court of Appeal of the striking out of his claim for harassment against LB Southwark.
Mr Allen was a Southwark tenant. Since [...]