Walsh v Lonsdale established that an equitable lease can arise from a written agreement to lease property even if it does not meet all formal requirements to be a legal lease. As such, both parties have the same rights and obligations as if it were a legal lease, including the landlord's right to collect unpaid rent. While the judge fused common law and equity principles in his reasoning, the doctrine created in this case allowing equitable treatment of defective leases remains good law.
Walsh v Lonsdale established that an equitable lease can arise from a written agreement to lease property even if it does not meet all formal requirements to be a legal lease. As such, both parties have the same rights and obligations as if it were a legal lease, including the landlord's right to collect unpaid rent. While the judge fused common law and equity principles in his reasoning, the doctrine created in this case allowing equitable treatment of defective leases remains good law.
Walsh v Lonsdale established that an equitable lease can arise from a written agreement to lease property even if it does not meet all formal requirements to be a legal lease. As such, both parties have the same rights and obligations as if it were a legal lease, including the landlord's right to collect unpaid rent. While the judge fused common law and equity principles in his reasoning, the doctrine created in this case allowing equitable treatment of defective leases remains good law.
Walsh v Lonsdale established that an equitable lease can arise from a written agreement to lease property even if it does not meet all formal requirements to be a legal lease. As such, both parties have the same rights and obligations as if it were a legal lease, including the landlord's right to collect unpaid rent. While the judge fused common law and equity principles in his reasoning, the doctrine created in this case allowing equitable treatment of defective leases remains good law.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9
Background Facts The Plaintiff [Walsh] entered an agreement to lease a property off the Defendant [Lonsdale]. The agreement was made, but there was no actual formal lease (ie, a deed), which means it is not a legal lease. The Plaintiff was behind on his rent and the Defendant tried to use his right to 'distress' (right of a landlord to take tenant's chattels if behind on rent). The Plaintiff is trying to get an injunction against the distress. Argument The Plaintiff argues that the lease was not properly signed and therefore the landlord does not have the right to distress. Judgment Equitable Leases An equitable lease arises where there is an agreement to lease in writing which does not abide by formal requirements (ie, not a deed). An equitable lease, where the court would grant specific performance on the agreement, should be respected as if it a legal lease. The lessee acquires an equitable interest in the property, and accordingly, the lessor acquires some protections in return for that interest. 0 Both parties have the same entitlements as they would if it was a legal lease, for example, the lessor can re-enter the land under certain conditions (such as breach of contract etc), and only under those certain conditions (ie, he can be barred from entering unless these conditions are fulfilled).
Fusion Fallacies in this judgment, Jessel MR commits the fusion fallacy of common law and equity when he declares: 'There are not two estates as there were formerly, one estate at common law by reason of the payment of the rent from year to year, and an estate in equity under the agreement. There is only one Court, and the equity rules prevail in it'. Nevertheless, this case is good law (it has been affirmed since)
Walsh v Lonsdale (1882)
Facts A 7 year lease was granted by Lonsdale to Walsh over a mill The lease agreement contained a clause allowing rent to be paid up front for 1 year upon the demand of Lonsdale The lease was not granted by deed, which was and still is a formal requirement of the creation of leases with duration exceeding 3 years (now section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925) Londsale (the landlord/lessor) demanded a years rent upfront. This was not paid and so under the the now abolished remedy of distress, Lonsdale seized property belonging to Walsh to enable the recovery of rent advance Issue Could Walsh stop Lonsdale from demanding the years rent and the seizing of his property as the lease was not formally executed? Decision No Reasoning The doctrine of Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) was created, allowing equity to regard as done that which ought to be done, or more simply, creating an equitable equivalent of a formally defective but otherwise legal lease The doctrine will only operate where the contract underlying the defective lease complies with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, in that it is in writing, contains all express terms, is signed by or on behalf of all parties, provides for consideration and is specifically enforceable
