13.07.2015 Views

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

characteristic <strong>of</strong> a tenancy. 27 On that basis <strong>the</strong> obligati<strong>on</strong> to h<strong>on</strong>our<strong>the</strong> bargain ought to be regarded as an “overriding” <strong>on</strong>e, out <strong>of</strong> which<strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord may not c<strong>on</strong>tract. Any provisi<strong>on</strong> purporting to c<strong>on</strong>tractout <strong>of</strong> it could be regarded as negating <strong>the</strong> very grant <strong>of</strong> a tenancy.The key c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> is, <strong>of</strong> course, what it is that a l<strong>and</strong>lord canreas<strong>on</strong>ably be expected to st<strong>and</strong> over. That is why it was suggestedearlier that <strong>the</strong> replacement <strong>of</strong> secti<strong>on</strong> 41 <strong>of</strong> Deasy’s Act shouldc<strong>on</strong>tain a more limited provisi<strong>on</strong>, in essence a provisi<strong>on</strong> whereby <strong>the</strong>l<strong>and</strong>lord carries resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for his own acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> “those claimingthrough, under or in trust for him”, ie, those pers<strong>on</strong>s for whom itwould not be unreas<strong>on</strong>able to expect <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord to carryresp<strong>on</strong>sibility. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>ally recommends that <strong>the</strong>more limited replacement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> obligati<strong>on</strong> relating to quietenjoyment in secti<strong>on</strong> 41<strong>of</strong> Deasy’s Act should c<strong>on</strong>tain an overridingobligati<strong>on</strong>.6.09 There remains <strong>on</strong>e fur<strong>the</strong>r matter to be raised. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>interesting developments in English case law in recent times has been<strong>the</strong> courts’ willingness to regard l<strong>and</strong>lords <strong>of</strong> multi-let properties,such as shopping centres, industrial parks <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice blocks, as owinga duty to each tenant in such properties to manage it properly. 28Sometimes this duty is stated to be based up<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> doctrine <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>derogati<strong>on</strong>from grant 29 <strong>and</strong> sometimes <strong>on</strong> an express or impliedcovenant for quiet enjoyment. 30 Sometimes it is based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>principles <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tract law, in that <strong>the</strong> alleged failure by <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord issaid to amount to a fundamental breach <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tract, a breach going to<strong>the</strong> root <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tract or amounting to a repudiati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> it, whichjustifies <strong>the</strong> tenant in “rescinding” it, 31 ie treating himself or herself asdischarged from any fur<strong>the</strong>r performance <strong>of</strong> it. 32 It remains to be seen272829303132See paragraph 1.19 above.See Wylie Irish <strong>L<strong>and</strong>lord</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tenant</strong> <strong>Law</strong> (2 nd ed Butterworths 1998)paragraphs 14.12, 15.13 <strong>and</strong> 17.08.Chartered Trust plc v Davies [1997] 2 EGLR 83; Petra Investments Ltd vJeffrey Rogers plc [2000] 3 EGLR 120.Southwark L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> Borough Council v Mills [1999] 4 All ER 449.Not to be c<strong>on</strong>fused with an order <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> court rescinding a c<strong>on</strong>tract <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>basis <strong>of</strong> inequitable c<strong>on</strong>duct (eg, fraud, duress or undue influence) by <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r party.Hussein v Mehlman [1992] 2 EGLR 83; Nynehead Developments Ltd v RHFibreboard C<strong>on</strong>tainers Ltd [1999] 1 EGLR 7.98

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!