Weekly review: 6th – 10th May 2013

Conveyancing: requisitions on title

There is no duty to reply to ‘requisitions’ which are too vague to be classified as such. Nevertheless, the seller remains under a duty to meet the contractual requirement to show and give good title (Continental Zone Ltd v More Glory International Ltd)

Periodic tenancy: implied: relevant factors

When the courts are considering whether or not an implied periodic tenancy has been created, the fact that T is in possession of L’s land and paying rent at regular intervals is a relevant (sometimes decisive) factor but there can be other relevant factors that reinforce or contradict the suggestion that an implied periodic tenancy has been created (Javad v Aqil).

Periodic tenancy: implied: holding over: relevance of intervals at which rent is paid

Where an implied periodic tenancy arises as a result of a holding over at the end of a fixed term, the intervals at which rent was payable (and according to which it was expressed) are a strong indicator as to the nature of the periodic tenancy (Adler v Blackman)

Periodic tenancy: holding over

Where a tenant remains in possession at the end of a fixed term and the landlord accepts rent, it is an open question as to whether or not a periodic tenancy has been created (there is no presumption to this effect) (Longrigg, Burrough and Trounson v Smith)


After Financial and Investment Services for Asia Ltd v Baik Wha International Trading Co Ltd, it is clear that the court can look at the substance of the competing interests (and then consider the impact of registration or a failure to register) (Silver Hope Ltd v Chan Kwai Wah Alice)


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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: