Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v London Residuary Body

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 November 1991
Date01 November 1991
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Justice Parker, Lord Justice McCowan and Lord Justice Scott

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd
and
London Residuary Body and Others

Landlord and tenant - lease - conditional termination - uncertainty

Tenancy bad for uncertainty

The grant of a tenancy for a term limited to terminate on the land being required by the landlord for road-widening purposes was bad for uncertainty as to its maximum term.

The Court of Appeal so held allowing an appeal by the tenant, Prudential Assurance Co Ltd, from the decision of Mr Justice Millett who had held that a notice to quit served by the landlord, the London Residuary Body, was valid. The Court of Appeal gave the landlord leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

By a written agreement dated December 13, 1930 the original tenant, Mr Samuel Nathan, sold land fronting 263-265 Walworth Road which he then leased back from the original landlord, the London County Council. Clause 1 of the lease provided that the rent should be £30 per annum payable quarterly and clause 6 provided that the tenancy should continue until the land was required by the council, which was also the highway authority, for the purpose of widening Walworth Road. Subsequently the council's rights and obligations became vested in the Greater London Council and on its dissolution the London Residuary Body.

Mr David Neuberger, QC and Paul de la Piquerie for the tenant; Mr Robert Reid, QC and Mr Stephen Lloyd for the landlord.

LORD JUSTICE SCOTT said that the issue was whether a notice to quit served by the present landlord was valid. It was common ground that the event contemplated, namely the land being required for road-widening purposes, had not happened.

Was the grant of a tenancy for a term limited to terminate on the land being required for road-widening purposes a grant which the law could recognise? There were three Court of Appeal decisions which should be referred to.

Lace v ChandlerELR ([1944] KB 368), in his Lordship's view, decided that a grant of a tenancy to continue until the land was required for road-widening purpose could not take effect as a good grant.

In re Midland Railway Company's AgreementELR ([1971] Ch 725) was authority for two propositions: First, the uncertainty of term principle that was applied in Lace v Chandler did not apply to periodic tenancies. Second, a fetter in a periodic tenancy of the right of one or other party to serve a notice determining the tenancy was not to be rejected as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Mexfield Housing Co-Operative Ltd v Berrisford
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 15 July 2010
    ...Bretherton submits that the decision which over-arches proper analysis of this case is that of the House of Lords in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v. London Residuary Body [1992] AC 386. By reference to it, Ms Bretherton primarily submits that the Occupancy Agreement entered into by Mexfield ......
  • Chiam Heng Luan and Others v Chiam Heng Hsien and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 August 2007
    ... ... 73         In Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body [1992] ... ...
  • Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd v Rose Marie Samuels
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 28 September 2012
    ...decided on the separate question of whether a tenancy had been created in the circumstances of that case (see Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body and Others [1992] 3 All ER 504 ), the alternative analysis by the court, dealing with contractual licences, has survived. During ......
  • Chaudhary v Yavuz
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 November 2011
    ...agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the agreement created a tenancy (a point on which the decision was overruled in Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body [1992] 2 AC 386 because of the lack of a term certain, and on which the case has enjoyed very recent consideration in the Sup......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT