Recent Property Cases – Jan & Feb 2013


Sadd v Brown (05/01/13)

Where a Lease provided for the landlord to insure the building but omitted any express obligation on the tenant to contribute to the cost, a term would not be implied to make the tenant liable to contribute and, in the absence of any sweeping up provision, none of the service charge provisions could be construed to cover this cost.

Meah v GE Money Finance (18/01/13)

Although there were shortcomings in the sale by a mortgagee of the security property, there was no breach of the obligation to take reasonable precautions to obtain the true value on the sale.

Ridgewood Properties v Valero Energy Limited (30/01/13)

The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 does not apply to options or conditional agreements for lease so the purchaser of the properties was not bound by the airspace agreements previously entered into by the vendor. Accordingly, although no term was to be implied into the agreements that the vendor could not sell the properties subject to them, it was liable for breach of an implied term not to make performance of its obligations impossible. However, there was no claim on the basis of repudiatory breach as the Claimant had affirmed the agreements.

Charles Lissack v Manhattan Loft Corporation (31/01/13)

A claim for commission for introducing the Defendant to the St Pancras Development failed as there was no oral agreement as claimed and in any event the final transaction was very different to what was originally proposed. A claim for payment on a quantum meruit basis also failed as the Claimant had no real expectation of receiving payment for the limited work he did do.

RVB Investments v Bibby (01/02/13)

Specific performance to take a new lease was ordered against a surety following default by the tenant. No S.17 Notice was needed to enforce such a liability and the surety would be liable for all rates liability.

John Grimes Partnership v Gubbins (05/02/13)

A negligent engineer who delayed a development project could be liable for losses resulting from a fall in the market as this was reasonably foreseeable if there was delay.

Williamson v Kerdene (06/02/13)

Subsequent purchasers of properties forming part of a holiday village were liable under positive obligations to make payments to the freehold owner as there was a real relation between the obligation to make payments and the communal rights enjoyed and the purchasers could not have the benefit without the burden.