Weekly review: 26th – 30th March 2012

Leases: quiet enjoyment

The covenant for quiet enjoyment can only be broken by an action (or omission) that occurred after the date of the lease. It does not impose an obligation to improve the property (Southwark LBC v Mills).

The covenant for quiet enjoyment does not impose a positive obligation to repair (though breach of such an obligation could also amount to a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment) (Duke of Westminster v Guild).

The covenant for quiet enjoyment is a covenant that the tenant’s lawful possession of the premises will not be substantially interfered with by the acts of the lessor or those claiming under him. It is prospective: it only relates to things done after the lease was granted. The interference need not be direct or physical (noise can give rise to a breach) (Southwark LBC v Tanner).

A tenant has an equitable right of set-off where there is a close connection between the landlord’s claim to rent and the tenant’s claim against the landlord. There could be such a link where the landlord is in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment (Ridge Ltd v Golden Castle Ltd).

Advertisements

One Response to “Weekly review: 26th – 30th March 2012”

  1. The Hong Kong Honky Says:

    I love that the society in Hong Kong is so open. It’s actually easier to find the laws that govern Hong Kong, than those that govern Kansas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: