Chancery Division
“A beneficial tenant in common who continued in occupation of a property following the bankruptcy of the other beneficial tenant in common could be required to compensate the bankrupt’s estate for that continued occupation.”
The Times, 24th July 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A head lessee of a block of flats could be a qualifying tenant of an individual flat in the block so as to be entitled to claim a lease extension for it under s 39 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.”
WLR Daily, 26th June 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio and Others; Earl Cadogan and Another v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd
House of Lords
“A head lessee of a block of flats could be a qualifying tenant of an individual flat in the block so as to be entitled to claim a lease extension for it under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.”
The Times, 27th June 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Governors of the Peabody Trust v Reeve
Chancery Division
“A social landlord could not vary its tenancy agreement unilaterally; excluding changes in rent, any variation would need the agreement in writing of both parties.”
The Times, 9th June 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
The Governors of the Peabody Trust v Reeve; [2008] WLR (D) 181
“The procedure in s 103 of the Housing Act 1985 could not be used by a registered social landlord to vary the terms of a tenancy agreement unilaterally. Excluding changes in rent, any variation would need the agreement in writing of both parties.”
WLR Daily, 5th June 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
House of Lords
“‘Premises’ in which a flat was contained was an objectively recognisable space which a visitor would regard as the premises.”
The Times, 12th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Majorstake Ltd v Curtis [2008] UKHL 10; [2008] WLR (D) 32
“For the purposes of s 47(2) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 ‘the premises’ in which a flat was contained was an objectively recognisable space which a visitor would regard as the premises. The combination of the tenant’s flat and the flat immediately below it in a block of 50 flats on nine floors did not comprise “the premises” in which the tenant’s flat was contained. The landlord’s proposal to redevelop the two flats into a single unit could not therefore defeat the tenant’s right to acquire a new lease.”
WLR Daily, 6th February 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and Another
House of Lords
“A property was a house, which a leaseholder was entitled to acquire, if it had been designed for living in when it was first built and the structure remained substantially the same, even if it had subsequently become internally dilapidated and incapable of beneficial occupation.”
The Times, 4th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and another [2007] UKHL 5; [2008] WLR (D) 16
“A property which had been ‘designed … for living in’ when it was originally built, and which remained substantially so designed, was a ‘house’ within the meaning of s 2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 regardless of whether it had subsequently become internally dilapidated and incapable of immediate residential occupation.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Disproportionate exercise of judicial power
Lambeth London Borough Council v Onayomake
Court of Appeal
“Where a counterclaim had been made on substantial grounds in a possession action, it was a disproportionate exercise of judicial power to strike out a defence and counterclaim when the defendant’s legal representative had failed to file a check list on time.”
The Times, 2nd November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication
Southwark London Borough Council v Onayomake
“It was a disproportionate exercise of power to strike out a defence and counterclaim based on substantial grounds in a possession action merely because the defendant’s legal representative had failed to file a check list and had been late for the court management hearing to explain the failure.”
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Landlord discriminated against disabled tenant
Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm
Court of Appeal
“A landlord who served a notice to quit on a secure tenant who had unlawfully sublet his premises and who was a disabled person unlawfully discriminated against the tenant.”
The Times, 28th August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A notice that was purportedly given under s 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, but was subsequently accepted by the qualifying tenants to have failed to comply with the requirements of s 13(3), was an invalid notice that did not have statutory consequences and there was nothing in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Act to bar the tenants from serving without delay a valid s 13 notice.”
WLR Daily, 26th July 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Agreement contained a rent review clause
Court of Appeal
“Where an assured tenancy agreement contained a clause providing the machinery for the increase of the rent, the landlord was not required to comply with the rent review procedure set out by section 13 of the Housing Act 1988.”
The Times, 13th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online 21 days from the date of publication
Obligation gives tenant protection
Polarpark Enterprises Inc v. Allason
Chancery Division
“A licensee who occupied a property under a trust deed, which contained an obligation to repair and insure the property, had a protected licence.”
The Times, 26th June 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“It was not within the contemplation of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 that the leaseholder of a long lease of a building, which included multiple flats and common parts, came within the expression “a qualifying tenant of a flat” in s 56(1) so as to be able to exercise a statutory right to acquire a new long lease of a flat in the leased building, and the landlord of such a leaseholder was not bound to grant a new long lease.”
WLR Daily, 24th May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Lay and others v. Drexler and others [2007] EWCA Civ 464
“Where a tenant had filed an acknowledgment of service indicating an intention to take a new lease in response to his landlord’s application to the court to grant a new lease under the amended provisions of s 24(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, subsequent notice to the court that the tenant no longer wanted a new tenancy was similar to filing of a notice to discontinue a claim for a new lease justifying an order that the tenant should pay the costs of the entire proceedings to the landlord.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Assured tenant became a tolerated trespasser
Knowsley Housing Trust v. White
Court of Appeal
“Where, in the case of an assured tenancy governed by the Housing Act 1988, the court granted an order for possession using County Court Form N28 but suspended execution on terms, the tenancy expired on the last date stated for possession, and the occupant remained thereafter as a tolerated trespasser.”
The Times, 15th May 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Knowsley Housing Trust v. White (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening) [2007] EWCA Civ 404
“In the case of an assured tenancy, where the court granted an order for possession using County Court Form N28 but suspended execution on terms, the assured tenancy expired on the last date stated for possession and the occupant remained merely as a ‘tolerated trespasser’.”
WLR Daily, 2nd May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Major changes are afoot in Landlord and Tenant work – whether it is residential or commercial, writes Grania Langdon-Down.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 26th April 2007
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024