PDA

View Full Version : Quiet Enjoyment



johnboy
03-04-2010, 09:35 AM
On the issue of "Quiet enjoyment" how would it be enforced? Is there any referance to it in housing law or case law. How would it be defined?

tom999
03-04-2010, 09:45 AM
If you are refering to the covenant in landlord and tenant law, which gives the tenant the right to quiet enjoyment, see this thread for the legal and practical implications:
A landlord's right of access (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=26719).

westminster
03-04-2010, 10:40 AM
See the following judgments where quiet enjoyment is discussed at length, and other cases are referred to.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991021/mills-1.htm

The most relevant paragraphs start from the one beginning "I shall consider first the covenant for quiet enjoyment."

johnboy
04-04-2010, 12:23 PM
Very helpfull many thanks.

Lawcruncher
04-04-2010, 13:18 PM
On the issue of "Quiet enjoyment" how would it be enforced?

The short answer is that it is enforced like any other covenant. You can apply to the court for (a) liquidated damages (that is damages that reflect a loss incurred) and/or (b) an injunction.

A landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment applies to all tenancies and is not restricted to residential property.

jeffrey
04-04-2010, 13:45 PM
But I do not think that it's an automatic implied term. The Lease/Letting Agreement usually includes it, explicitly; otherwise L has no such obligation.

Lawcruncher
04-04-2010, 16:36 PM
But I do not think that it's an automatic implied term. The Lease/Letting Agreement usually includes it, explicitly; otherwise L has no such obligation.

Authority is against you. See Budd-Scott v Daniel [1902] and Markham v Paget[1908].

jeffrey
07-04-2010, 01:44 AM
Both over 100yrs. ago, so possibly now a little unreliable?

Lawcruncher
07-04-2010, 09:34 AM
Walsh v Lonsdale [1882]

Tulk v Moxhay (1848)

Rylands v Fletcher [1868]

jeffrey
07-04-2010, 10:18 AM
Not about implied terms, are they?

Lawcruncher
07-04-2010, 17:22 PM
Not about implied terms, are they?

No, but they are over 100 years old.

jeffrey
08-04-2010, 11:36 AM
So they predate:
a. the House of Lords decision in 1966 (approx.) that it will not necessarily be bound by its own precedents; and
b. the Human Rights Act 1998.