Appeal Court supports landlord’s rights of entry
On 1 July 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Rees v Earl of Plymouth [2020] regarding a farm tenancy and the landlord’s reserved right of entry.
The case is a significant decision supporting landlords’ rights of access and their freedom of action, particularly in the case of farm tenancies and access to tenanted land, but also for tenancies generally.
In this case the tenant farmed the holding under two tenancy agreements, one granted in 1965 and one in 1968, both now protected tenancies under Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
The landlord had obtained outline planning permission for housing on the land comprising the farm, where the environmental conditions attached to the planning permission required the landlord to undertake various landscape, wildlife and habitat surveys on the farm.
These surveys included, amongst other things, digging trial pits and boreholes; placing surveyors’ reference pins on the land, and leaving ‘remote bat detectors’ on the land for several days at a time in order to study the bat population.
The case related to the extent of a landlord’s ability to rely upon tenancy reservations to enter onto and carry out works on the tenanted land and came to the Court of Appeal following a High Court case where the Judge had said that a restrictive approach to reserved rights of entry in a tenancy should be taken.
The High Court’s conclusions had been supported by previous cases including Possfund Custodial Trustee Ltd v Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd and Heronslea (Mill Hill) Ltd v Kwik-Fit Properties Ltd, which previously had supported the notion of restricting a landowner’s freedom of movement when relying upon a landlord’s broad-based reservations of rights in tenancy agreements.
This meant an approach which would prevent entirely any intrusive surveys or other works being carried out that might cause interference or damage to the land.
The successful appeal brought against this conclusion by the High Court is now based on a Court of Appeal judgement given by Lord Justice Lewison, and is considered important as he is a leading legal authority on property law issues.
This judgment sets a useful reference point for landlords, particularly agricultural landlords, who seek to rely upon broadly-worded rights of entry in leases. These rights clauses inserted in order to conduct necessary works and such other activities as environmental, landscape or habitat surveys, though such rights should not be construed as permitting substantial or serious interferences with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
Tenancy agreements should include specific provisions for a landlord’s right of entry to be exercisable in such cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision makes it difficult be too specific on exactly what is permitted, stating that everything is considered on a case-by-case basis and that one would expect “material” disturbance or damage to be expressly authorised by the terms of the lease.
What is “material” is open to debate, but a sensible interpretation of the landlord’s rights should be taken into account set against the purpose of entry, which should be reasonable and necessary.
Rees v Earl of Plymouth [2020]
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – Appeal Court supports landlord’s rights of entry | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: Appeal Court supports landlord’s rights of entry
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’