Savva v Houssein (Hussein) [1996] EWCA Civ 1295 (24 April 1996)

Savva v Houssein (Hussein) [1996] EWCA Civ 1295 (24 April 1996)

Breaches of covenant by the tenant were capable of remedy; the section 146 notice was invalid for not requiring remedy; thus, forfeiture was not available. The tenant's penetration of the roof constituted technical trespass, but no damages were awarded. The landlord was liable for failure to repair the roof and walls, justifying damages and an order to repair.

Citation
[1996] EWCA Civ 1295
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: George Savva; Plaintiff/appellant: Amalia Savva; Defendant/respondent: Kemal Houssein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Lease, Breach of Covenant, Remedies for Breach, Section 146 Notice, Trespass, Damages, Injunctions
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Tort Law Forfeiture of Lease Breach of Covenant Remedies for Breach Section 146 Notice Trespass +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Savva

Plaintiff/appellant

Amalia Savva

Plaintiff/appellant

Kemal Houssein

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of covenant by tenant were capable of remedy under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the section 146 notice was valid
  3. 3 Whether there was trespass by the tenant in respect of the roof and air-space

Ratio Decidendi

Breaches of covenant by the tenant were capable of remedy; the section 146 notice was invalid for not requiring remedy; thus, forfeiture was not available. The tenant's penetration of the roof constituted technical trespass, but no damages were awarded. The landlord was liable for failure to repair the roof and walls, justifying damages and an order to repair.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Liberty to apply for injunction or other remedy in respect of trespass if circumstances change.
  • Landlord to effect repairs to roof and walls within 56 days as previously ordered.