This paper argues that the choice of remedial starting point in relation to proprietary estoppel is not simply a choice for claimants as matter of litigation strategy, contrary to the Singaporean Court of Appeal's view in Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence [2018] 2 SLR 799. It is a matter for the law to decide upon, since it raises an inherently normative question. The aim of proprietary estoppel, which is to avoid detriment, is best reflected when expectation relief is adopted as the starting point, but only where it provides a weak starting position.
The following scenario may not be uncommon to readers specialising in landlord and tenant law. A tenant is granted a tenancy of property (assume this is either a 12-month residential tenancy or a three-year commercial lease). In either case, after only three months of occupation, he decides that he no longer has any need for the property (because, for example, he has found cheaper premises elsewhere) and informs the landlord that he intends to vacate and stop paying rent. The tenant argues that the landlord should accept the surrender of the premises and instruct agents to market the property with a view to re-letting to a new tenant. The landlord is reluctant to accept a surrender given that the tenancy still has some time left to run. What options does the landlord have in these circumstances? Is he obliged to treat the tenancy/lease as at an end? Must he now seek to re-let the premises regardless of the state of the rental market? Can he accede to the tenant’s demand and claim for loss of rent during the remainder of the term? If so, is he under any obligation to mitigate his loss by taking appropriate steps to find a new tenant?
Discusses the options available for those subject to restrictive covenants over land who wish to have them modified or discharged. Examines the scope for applications to the Upper Tribunal under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.84 by means of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and their operation with respect to leasehold land in Shaviram Normandy Ltd v Basingstoke and Deane BC (UT). Reviews case law on other scenarios.
Reflects on the potential impact of the presence of Japanese knotweed on a property's value. Reviews council powers concerning knotweed clearance, the role of species control agreements, and case law involving a nuisance action for allowing knotweed to spread to adjoining land. Considers the efforts buyers should make to discover knotweed's presence, a surveyor's duties, the merits of property passports, and the information they should include.
Discusses, with reference to UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council (SC), the issues which notice provisions in a lease should include. Examines the importance of specifying that the notice be in writing, the address for service, the permitted methods of giving notices, such as via post, email or fax, and the role of deeming provisions. Includes an example form of notice clause.
