Jones v Cleanthi [2006] EWCA Civ 1712
Landlord and tenant; landlord erected wall blocking access to refuse bins; whether statutory obligation defeats easement
Facts
Jones was a tenant of a flat under a long lease. The agreement provided she had by way of easement access to, and the use of refuse bins at the rear of the property. The landlord’s predecessor in title received a s352 notice under the Housing Act 1985 from the local authority requiring him to construct a wall to adhere to fire safety regulations. The wall was duly erected but it blocked off Jones’s access to the refuse area, and she sought declaratory and injunctive relief to assert her easement rights.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
Jones argued the s352 notice did not necessarily carry with it a statutory power to comply with its contents when they interfered with her rights as a third party. She contended the landlord could have appealed the notice, or complied with its terms without interfering with her right of access. Even if he was obliged to construct the wall, this would still amount to an actionable breach of contract for which she could claim damages. Cleanthi argued the local authority was empowered to extinguish property rights in the interests of fire safety. A statutory obligation carries with it a statutory power to comply, and the works were strongly in the public interest. There was no actionable interference with a property right of a tenant where a landlord is complying with a statutory duty.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed Jones’s appeal, but disagreed with the lower courts on extinguishment. The notice required the wall to be built and the statutory duty carried with it the power to do the work. The wall prevented Jones from exercising her rights, but did not extinguish them. The rights could become exercisable again if the statutory obstacle ceased to apply.
Building the wall as required by the notice was no actionable interference with Jones’s rights. The court therefore did not need to decide whether any liability of the former landlord had passed to Cleanthi.
Reported citations [2007] 1 WLR 1604, [2007] WLR 1604, [2007] 3 All ER 841
