Obrien v Robinson [1973]
[...]
Disrepair and Fitness
Lee-Parker v Izzet [1971]
If a landlord fails to discharge his repairing obligations, the tenant may follow a strict procedure and do the repairs themselves and deduct the cost from their rent payments.
A landlord was in breach of his repairing obligations. The tenants spent money in carrying out repairs, and then claimed to be able to deduct the cost of the repairs from future rent payments.
[...]Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd. [1966]
Definition of ‘occupier’ under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts was determined.
The defendant was a brewery house. The managers of the brewery house lived on the premises and occupied a private portion there. A paying guest, Mr. Wheat, fell down the stairs of that private part of the premises and was killed, because there was no handrail on part of the stairs and an unknown person had removed the lightbulb on the stairway. The estate of the deceased guest sued the brewery under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
HELD: The main legal issue was whether the brewery fell within the scope of the Act as ‘occupier’. In the House of Lords, Lord Denning [...]
Warren v Keen (1954)
This was a leading decision on the tenant's repairing obligations.
This case concerned a tenant on a weekly statutory tenant, who was sued by the landlord for deterioration in the state of the demised premises. Although there was no covenant on the part of the tenant to do repairs, the landlord sought to put this obligation on the tenant, claiming the tenant had a duty to keep the premises wind-and-water-tight and to make general repairs. Yet, this was an important case in defining the parties' respective repairing obligations.
In this judgement, Denning LJ stated:
Summers v Salford [1943]
A broken window sash cord meant that the only window in a bedroom was jammed and could not be moved without danger. As this impaired ventilation it caused the house to be unfit for habitation.
[...]Smith v Marrable (1843)
In this case the courts recognised an exception to the caveat emptor rule, which is a common law rule meaning ‘let the buyer beware’. In the absence of any express agreement betweent the parties, neither party is responsible for the condition of the property, or repairs. Under this principle, the onus is on the person entering into a tenancy to satisfy himself of the condition of the property to which the tenancy relates.
A landlord rented out furnished premises to Sir Thomas Marrable. Lady Marrable subsequently found the premises to be infested with bugs and Sir Thomas gave notice to the landlord that he was giving up the tenancy. The landlord argued that Sir Thomas had no right to give up this tenancy because it had been agreed for a minimum term of 5 weeks and only five days had elapsed.
HELD:
[...]