Adler v Blackburn

When a letting for a year or a term of years ends and the tenant holds over with the landlord's consent, the ensuing tenancy is inferred from the rent and surrounding circumstances. A yearly tenancy is not implied merely because the expired letting was for a year. Where the rent was expressed simply as a weekly sum, the usual inference is a weekly tenancy for the period to which the rent relates. An annual rent payable by weekly instalments may support a yearly implication because each payment is an instalment of the annual rent. If the agreement and bare holding-over facts are equivocal, later conduct may help identify the parties' intention at expiry, but it cannot change the legal effect of the original bargain.

The tenant occupied shop premises under a one-year agreement at an inclusive rent of £3 per week. After the term expired, he remained in possession and continued paying weekly rent. The landlord served a notice to quit on the footing that the tenancy was weekly. The tenant contended that the prior one-year letting and acceptance of rent raised a rebuttable presumption of a yearly tenancy. The appeal from Mr Justice Ormerod concerned whether rent expressed weekly could support that implication and, if the agreement was equivocal, whether later conduct could evidence the parties' intention.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, with costs, and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

1. Holding over. After a fixed-term letting ends, continued possession with the landlord's consent and payment and acceptance of rent require the court to infer the parties' continuing relationship from the circumstances. The presumption of a yearly tenancy is rebuttable and depends materially on the way in which the rent was expressed.
2. Weekly rent. Where the original letting was for a year or a term of years but the rent was expressed simply as a weekly rent, holding over ordinarily creates a tenancy from week to week. That conclusion differs from a case where an annual rent is payable by weekly instalments, since each payment in the latter case is an instalment of an annual sum.
3. Authorities. Somervell, Jenkins and Hodson LJJ accepted the reasoning of Maugham J in Ladies' Hosiery and Underwear Ltd v Carter (1930 1 Chancery, page 304). They preferred that approach to the contrary view in Covered Markets Ltd v Green and rejected the latter view. Jenkins LJ also treated the views in Bank of Victoria and M'Hutchison and Box v Attfield as exceptions which he did not prefer.
4. Subsequent conduct. Jenkins LJ considered that, if the agreement and bare holding-over facts were equivocal, subsequent conduct could provide evidence of the parties' intention at the time of expiry. Somervell LJ did not base his decision on that evidence, and Hodson LJ considered it unnecessary because the agreement itself resolved the issue. The tenant's application under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1927 was therefore not essential to the result.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Unanimously dismissed the appeal from Mr Justice Ormerod's decision, with costs, and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
2. High Court: The appeal was from the decision of Mr Justice Ormerod concerning the validity of the weekly notice to quit.