Covenant for quiet possession

Citation

(1998), "Covenant for quiet possession", Property Management, Vol. 16 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.1998.11316cab.024

Covenant for quiet possession

Covenant for quiet possession

Southwark LBC v. Mills [1998] The Times, 11 March 1998

The landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment is normally regarded as referring to the landlord's obligation for himself (and for those claiming through, under or in trust for him) to refrain from doing any acts positively to interfere with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the demised premises, e.g. by obstructing access, or by act of deliberate harassment or even perhaps by employing workmen to carry out works on neighbouring premises in such a way that it causes excessive dust, noise or vibration so as to disturb the tenant's occupation.

The present case was rather different, since the tenant was claiming that the lack of effective soundproofing between adjourning flats had the effect that even the sounds of normal domestic life in the neighbouring properties came through into his own flat so as to disturb him in his occupation. The Southwark Arbitration Tribunal had ordered the council landlord to carry out effective soundproofing so as to cure the problem, and the council had appealed against that order relying inter alia on dicta from Kekewich J in Jenkins v. Jackson [1888] 40 ChD. 71 at 74, where he had said: "When a man is quietly in possession it has nothing whatever to do with noise ... 'Peaceably and quietly' means without interference, without interruption of the possession...".

Laddie J disagreed with the restricted interpretation of the law replying on the more recent decisions in Sampson v. Hodson ­ Pressinger [1981] 3 All ER 710 and Baxter v. Camden LBC [1997] (unreported, 20 June 1997 CA (Civ. Div.) Transcript No. 1058 of 1997), and dismissing the council's appeal against the order of the Tribunal.