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.

y <strong>on</strong>e joint tenant is sufficient to end <strong>the</strong> joint tenancy 23 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re issome authority for <strong>the</strong> propositi<strong>on</strong> that a service <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e is evidence <strong>of</strong>service <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>m all. 24 The Commissi<strong>on</strong> inclines to <strong>the</strong> view that <strong>the</strong>same rule should apply to service <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e joint tenant as applies toservice by <strong>on</strong>e joint tenant. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>allyrecommends that a forfeiture notice should be valid, in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> adead tenant in respect <strong>of</strong> whom no representati<strong>on</strong> has been raised, ifit is served <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> pers<strong>on</strong> in possessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> demised premises <strong>and</strong>that secti<strong>on</strong> 67 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> C<strong>on</strong>veyancing Act 1881 should apply to cover<strong>the</strong> case where <strong>the</strong>re is no pers<strong>on</strong> in possessi<strong>on</strong>; fur<strong>the</strong>r that serviceup<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e joint tenant <strong>of</strong> a jointly held tenancy should be valid asagainst all <strong>the</strong> joint tenants.14.11 The requirements as to <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> notice laid downin secti<strong>on</strong> 14 are also somewhat complicated. The l<strong>and</strong>lord isrequired to specify three things. The first is <strong>the</strong> “particular breachcomplained <strong>of</strong>”, but it is not entirely clear what degree <strong>of</strong> detail isrequired. 25 Never<strong>the</strong>less <strong>the</strong> Commissi<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siders it to be entirelyreas<strong>on</strong>able to require <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord to inform <strong>the</strong> tenant <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> breach <strong>of</strong>obligati<strong>on</strong> justifying <strong>the</strong> forfeiture.14.12 The sec<strong>on</strong>d thing required in <strong>the</strong> notice is to call up<strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong>tenant to remedy <strong>the</strong> breach “if <strong>the</strong> breach is capable <strong>of</strong> remedy”.Which breaches fall into this category has been a matter <strong>of</strong> somec<strong>on</strong>troversy <strong>and</strong> in modern times <strong>the</strong> courts seem to be very reluctantto find that any breach comes within it. 26 Arguably <strong>the</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cept couldbe dropped. C<strong>on</strong>versely, secti<strong>on</strong> 14 does not require <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord tospecify <strong>the</strong> remedy sought, 27 but it has been held that <strong>the</strong> tenant mustbe given sufficient time in which to remedy <strong>the</strong> breach. 28 Theproblem is that what this amounts to may vary from case to case <strong>and</strong>232425262728Hammersmith <strong>and</strong> Fulham L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> Borough Council v M<strong>on</strong>k [1992] 1 AllER 1; Harrow L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> Borough Council v Johnst<strong>on</strong>e [1997] 1 All ER 929.Pollock v Kelly (1856) 6 ILCR 367.See <strong>the</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong> in McIlvenny v McKeever [1931] NI 161.See ETS Vehicles Ltd v Fargate Developments Ltd [1997] NI 25, followingExpert Clothing Service <strong>and</strong> Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch340.Piggott v Middlesex County Council [1969] 1 Ch 134.Walsh v Wightman [1927] NI 1, 11 (per Andrews LJ). See also McIlvennyv McKeever [1931] NI 161.170

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!