London City Corporation v Fell and Others (Sub nom Herbert Duncan Ltd v Cluttons)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1991 |
| Date | 10 July 1991 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Desmond Perrett, QC
Landlord and tenant - end of original lease - end of liability
The terms "tenancy" and "term" in respect of leases had distinct and precise meanings. Where a lease which had been assigned by the original lessee had run its term and been extended by the assignee under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the obligations of the original lessee ceased on the completion of the term.
Mr Desmond Perrett, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, so held when giving judgment for John Arnold Fell, John Edward James Hayward and Edward Denham Sturmer, the defendants in an action by the City of London for arrears of rent arising on premises of which the defendants were the original lessees but which had been assigned in 1984.
Mr Mark Pawlowski for the plaintiffs; Miss Erica Foggin for the defendants.
HIS LORDSHIP said that the defendants, solicitors in the City of London, had taken a lease on premises owned by the plaintiffs for a term of ten years from March 25, 1976. In June 1979 the lease was assigned to Grovebell Group plc for the residue of the unexpired term.
The final payment of rent was due at Christmas 1985. At the expiration of the ten-year term, on March 24, 1986, the assignees continued in occupation pursuant to the provisions of Part II of the 1954 Act until January 23, 1987 when the premises were surrendered to the lessors.
On December 1, 1986 the assignees were compulsorily wound up. The plaintiffs were left with a deficit of £33,460.64 and were told by the liquidators that the prospect of a dividend was remote. In 1990 the lessors issued a writ against the original lessees for the outstanding rent.
Clause 1 of the lease referred to "the term of ten years …". It was the defendants' contention that that defined clearly and without equivocation, the extent in time for which they remained liable for payment of rent and the lessors, having received rent for the term, were entitled to no more.
The plaintiffs alleged that since it was a business tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act applied, the privity of contract between the original parties to the contractual lease continued during the statutory extension of the lease, for by section 24(1) of the Act a business tenancy was not to come to an end unless determined in accordance with the provisins of the Act, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends' Provident Life Office v British Railways Board
...... lessor against the dismissal in Central London County Court of his claim for unpaid rent of ......
-
London City Corporation v Fell and Others (Sub nom Herbert Duncan Ltd v Cluttons)
...the obligation to pay rent, of an original tenant who has assigned the tenancy before that date. In City of London Corporation v. Fell [1992] 3 All ER 224 Mr Desmond Perrett, Q.C., (as he then was) has answered the question in the negative. In Herbert Duncan Ltd v. Cluttons (1992) 1 EGLR 10......
- Burford Midland Properties Ltd v Marley Extrusions Ltd and Others