Cases Flashcards
Street v Mountford 1985
Street - Stated the agreement was a licence:
Granted Mountford the right to occupy rooms for a rent of £37 per week.
The terms stated Street could enter at any time in respect of maintenance.
No one other than Moutnford could occupy the premises - could be terminated with 14 days notice.
Licence was not intended to give a tenancy protection from the Rents Act.
Held - The agreement was a lease.
If the agreement satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy.
Lord Templeman stated:
Distinction between a tenancy and a licence of land lay in the grant of land for a TERM at a RENT with EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION.
United Scientific Holdings Lted v Burnley Borough Council (1977)
Time is not normally of the essence.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Host Group Ltd (1987)
The tenant successfully argued that the hypothetical letting should be assumed to be a lease on the same terms and for the same use as the actual lease.
British Gas Corporation v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd (1986)
The court considered whether a hypothetical lease at rent review would contain a rent review clause.
Future rent reviews in the actual lease should be considered in the hypothetical lease in agreeing the open market rent.
Canary Wharf Investments v Telegraph Ltd (2003)
Where the rent review clause is silent on the term to be assumed for rental valuation purposes, it is normally the residual term.
This lease assumed a 25-year term but with no commencement date.
It was held that the lease was to run from the rent review date.
Wording is key
National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1993)
In a case involving the loss of a ship following a fire, the judge gave a description of the duties of an expert witness, which has been routinely accepted in subsequent cases and which forms the basis of what is now set out in legislation (the Civil Procedure Rules).
The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include:
Expert evidence presented to the court should be independent and uninfluenced
An expert witness should provide independent, objective, unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his/her expertise.
An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.
An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions on which his/her opinion is based.
An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his/her expertise.
If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he/she considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an expert witness, who has prepared a report, could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report.
If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his/her view on a material matter having read the other side’s expert’s report or for any other reason, such change of view should be communicated (through legal representatives) to the other side without delay and when appropriate to the court.
Where expert evidence refers to photographs, plans, calculations, analyses, measurements, survey reports or other similar documents, these must be provided to the opposite party at the same time as the exchange of reports.
Jones v Kaney (2011)
Expert witness is now not protected by immunity and can now be sued for negligence.
S. Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd (2017)
If the landlord wishes to refuse the grant of a new business tenancy on development grounds, there must be a firm and settled intention to carry out works.
Vivienne Westwood v Conduit Street Developments (2017)
Shop in Mayfair: When taking the lease, the landlord agreed a side letter allowing a lower rent, which the landlord could terminate in the event of any breach.
Court held the landlord termination right was a penalty clause and unenforceable.
Lease and side letter were part of the same deal and had to be read together.
Betty’s Cafes Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores (1959)
Facts underlying grounds a to c will need to be established at the date of the hearing and statements given must be honest and truthful.
Associated British Ports v Humber Oil Terminal Trustees (2012)
Section 30 g - Owner occupation.
Immingham Oil Terminal in the Humber Estuary
ABP - Landlord
Relates to the landlord wishing not to renew a lease - planned to occupy the premises for their own purpose.
Tenant tried to seek a new lease as it was against the landlords plans to operate the terminal itself and open it up to third party users.
Court held that the landlord did not have to renew the lease on the grounds that it could demonstrate clear intentions to occupy the holding for the purposes of its own business.
O’May v City of London Real Property Co. (1982)
On the expiry of a five-year lease, the landlord proposed a new five year term.
However, the proposed new lease transferred various obligations (as to repair and other services of the premises) to the tenant in return for a small reduction in rent.
These proposals created a ‘clear lease’, resulting in the landlord’s interest in the premises becoming more valuable. Dismissing the landlord’s proposals, the Court of Appeal held that:
- any departure from the terms of the current lease must be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances; and
- the burden of persuading the court to change the terms of the current lease on its renewal is on the party proposing the change.
Four principles test regarding the variation of lease terms to reflect modern lease terms:
- Landlord must have a valid reason on estate management grounds
- Change proposed must be capable of being compensated by a change in rent
- Change must not materially adversely affect the tenant’s security of tenure
- It must be reasonable
