|
|
Estoppel
The practice of a landlord whereby leases were renewed on a number of occasions at the end of their respective terms did not give rise to an estoppel entitling the tenant to new leases. a long standing practice by a landlord of renewing leases at a ground rent cannot of itself justify an expectation on the part of the tenants that that practice will continue in perpetuity. Something more is, in my judgment, required before any question of unconscionability can arise. The mere fact that it may have been reasonable for a tenant to incur capital expenditure, on the basis that the likelihood was that the practice would continue into the future, cannot, in my judgment, be sufficient to convert the long-standing practice into a representation or assurance sufficient to found a proprietary estoppel ( Parker LJ). A tentative submission based on Art 8 of the ECHR (protection of home) and Art 1 of the Protocol (property rights) was dismissed out of hand:I can, for my part, see nothing in Article 8 or Article 1 of the First Protocol to support the proposition that a tenant is entitled to the renewal of his lease in circumstances where such an entitlement does not exist under domestic law. Keewalk Proceedings Ltd v Waller [2002] EWCA Civ 1076; [2002] 48 EG 142.
Back to top
|
|
|