Walsh v Lonsdale
A specifically enforceable agreement for a lease creates an equitable lease on the same terms as the agreed legal lease, because equity treats as done that which ought to be done.
Facts
Mr Lonsdale agreed in writing to grant Mr Walsh a lease of a mill for seven years. The agreement provided that rent would be payable a year in advance if the landlord demanded it. No lease was ever granted by deed, so Mr Walsh did not have a legal lease. He went into possession and paid rent quarterly in arrears. The landlord then demanded a year's rent in advance and, when it was not paid, exercised his right to distrain on Mr Walsh's goods. Mr Walsh argued that, without a deed, he was only a yearly periodic tenant at law, so the term requiring rent in advance did not apply.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the landlord was entitled to distrain. Sir George Jessel MR said that, since the Judicature Acts, there are not two estates as there were formerly, one estate at common law and another in equity. A tenant holding under an agreement for a lease, of which specific performance would be granted, holds under the same terms in equity as if a lease had been granted, because equity treats as done that which ought to be done. Where the rules of law and equity conflict, equity prevails, so Mr Walsh held on the terms of the agreed lease, including the term requiring payment in advance.
Related cases on leases and licences
- AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1
- Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766
- Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 52, [2012] 1 AC 955
- Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359
- Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406
- Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290
- Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
