Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

not clear how far statute law has changed this position in Ireland,partly because again there are duplicate provisions.3.09 The English courts interpreted the replacement 28 of section10 of the Conveyancing Act 1881, which still applies here, 29 as havingthe effect that a right to sue for breaches which have already occurredis one of the rights which passes on assignment to an assignee. 30However this position, if it is the correct interpretation of section 10,is difficult to reconcile with section 14 of Deasy’s Act. This providesthat an assignee of the landlord’s or tenant’s interest has the benefit orliability of any obligations in the lease or tenancy only in respect ofrent accrued due or breaches which occur subsequent to theassignment of that interest and while that interest is held by theassignee. Thus if the assignor has failed to pay rent, the assignee isliable only for the apportioned part accruing due from the date ofassignment. 31 Section 14 adds the proviso that a tenant assignee doesnot secure a discharge from liabilities by assigning the tenant’sinterest to someone else unless and until notice in writing of theparticulars of this further assignment are given to the landlord.3.10 The Commission inclines to the view that section 14 is asensible provision and that any replacement legislation should bebased on it. There is, however, some scope for clarification. Forexample, it should operate without prejudice to the common law rulethat an assignee is liable for continuing breaches, 32 ie, breaches ofobligation which occurred initially before the assignee acquired theinterest, but remained unremedied at the time of assignment andcontinued thereafter, such as a breach of a covenant to keep thedemised premises in repair or to use them in a particular manner. 33 Ithas been held that the requirement to give notice to the landlord inorder to secure a discharge of liability applies only to cases of282930313233Section 141 of the Law of Property Act 1925.See paragraph 3.03 above.See Re King [1963] Ch 459; Arlesford Trading Co Ltd v Servansingh[1971] 3 All ER 113; Warnford Investments Ltd v Duckworth [1979] Ch127.Glass v Patterson [1902] 1 IR 660.See paragraph 3.08 above.See Woodfall’s Law of Landlord and Tenant (Looseleaf ed Stevens)Volume 1 paragraphs 17.105-106.59