Agricullo Ltd v Yorkshire Housing Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 229 (16 March 2010)

Agricullo Ltd v Yorkshire Housing Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 229 (16 March 2010)

Clause 9.3 of the lease does not entitle the landlord to recover costs incurred after the tenant's counter-notice under the 1938 Act unless such costs are linked to proceedings under s.146, which were neither in existence nor in contemplation after the counter-notice. No special circumstances existed to justify granting leave to bring a damages claim for loss of rent under s.1(5)(e) of the 1938 Act.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 229
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Agricullo Limited; Defendant/respondent: Yorkshire Housing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on the second ground refused.
Legal Topics
Construction of Lease Covenants, Recovery of Costs Under Lease, Section 146 Law of Property Act 1925, Leasehold Property (repairs) Act 1938, Leave to Bring Proceedings for Damages, Special Circumstances Under S.1(5)(e) 1938 Act
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Construction of Lease Covenants Recovery of Costs Under Lease Section 146 Law of Property Act 1925 Leasehold Property (repairs) Act 1938 Leave to Bring Proceedings for Damages Special Circumstances Under S.1(5)(e) 1938 Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agricullo Limited

Claimant/appellant

Yorkshire Housing Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 9.3 of the lease entitles the landlord to recover costs incurred after service of a counter-notice under the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 without leave of the court.
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances existed to justify granting leave to bring a claim for damages for loss of rent under s.1(5)(e) of the 1938 Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 9.3 of the lease does not entitle the landlord to recover costs incurred after the tenant's counter-notice under the 1938 Act unless such costs are linked to proceedings under s.146, which were neither in existence nor in contemplation after the counter-notice. No special circumstances existed to justify granting leave to bring a damages claim for loss of rent under s.1(5)(e) of the 1938 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on the second ground refused.