Kenny v Preen

A landlord breaches the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment by deliberately and persistently intimidating a tenant in an attempt to drive the tenant from possession. Threats of physical eviction and removal of belongings may seriously interfere with the exercise and benefit of the right of possession, even without completed dispossession.

A mere assertion that the tenancy has ended, including a threat to seek possession through legal proceedings, does not by itself breach the covenant. Persistent knocking and shouting of threats may constitute substantial direct physical interference. Where the claim sounds only in contract and no pecuniary or material loss is proved, damages are nominal rather than punitive or exemplary.

The landlord appealed from a judgment of Deputy Judge Ellison in the Marylebone County Court awarding the tenant £100 damages for breach of the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment and granting an injunction. The tenant cross-appealed against the refusal of a declaration that her tenancy was protected by the Rent Acts 1920 to 1957.

The landlord had repeatedly demanded possession, threatened physical eviction and removal of the tenant’s belongings, and knocked at her door while shouting threats. The principal issues were whether this conduct breached the covenant, what damages were recoverable, and whether the requested declaration fell within the County Court’s ancillary jurisdiction.

1. Disposition. The landlord’s appeal was allowed only to the extent that damages were reduced from £100 to £2. The injunction remained in force. The tenant’s cross-appeal was dismissed. All three Lord Justices agreed upon those orders.
2. Quiet enjoyment. Pearson LJ delivered the leading judgment, with which Ormerod LJ agreed. The implied covenant protects a tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment against interference by the landlord or those claiming through or under the landlord. By letting the premises, the landlord confers a right of possession and impliedly promises not to interfere with its exercise and benefit. The reasoning in Budd-Scott v Daniell [1902] 2 KB 351 and Markham v Paget [1908] 1 Ch 697 supported that principle.
3. A landlord does not breach the covenant merely by asserting, however wrongly, frequently, emphatically or rudely, that a tenancy has ended. Nor is it a breach merely to threaten court proceedings for possession or damages. This case involved substantially more: a deliberate and persistent campaign of intimidation intended to drive the tenant from possession, including threats of physical eviction and removal of her belongings. That conduct seriously restricted the tenant’s freedom to exercise her right of possession and deprived her of its full benefit. Pearson LJ held that it was capable of constituting a breach even without direct physical interference.
4. Alternatively, substantial physical interference was present. The repeated knocking at the door and shouting of threats had to be assessed against the threatening correspondence. Donovan LJ based his concurrence on that narrower ground. He considered the conduct more than personal annoyance and regarded the physical element required by the authorities as satisfied.
5. Remedies. The tenant alleged breach of contract alone and proved no pecuniary or material loss. Applying Perera v Vandiya [1953] 1 WLR 672, punitive or exemplary damages were unavailable, and nominal damages of £2 were appropriate. The injunction was properly maintained because an intention to continue or repeat the breach could be inferred, despite the pleading’s failure expressly to allege it.
6. Declaration. Section 74 of the County Courts Act 1959 conferred only ancillary jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief. A declaration that the tenancy was protected by the Rent Acts went beyond what was ancillary to the damages claim. The County Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant it.

1. Court of Appeal: The landlord’s appeal was allowed only to the extent of reducing damages from £100 to £2. The injunction was undisturbed, and the tenant’s cross-appeal was dismissed.
2. Marylebone County Court: Deputy Judge Ellison awarded the tenant £100 damages for breach of the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment and granted an injunction, but refused a declaration that the tenancy was protected by the Rent Acts 1920 to 1957.