It might be that my brain has not yet kicked into gear this year, but I am not entirely sure that I know what the request means.

Termination of tenancy may occur by the completion of the term, or otherwise. If it occurs by the completion of the term, I find it difficult to see what "losses" the tenant might have. In certain circumstances, statute gives many tenants the right to a further term, and, again, when that is complete, I still find it difficult to see what "losses" the tenant might have. If, during the course of the term, the tenant has made improvements, there may be a statutory right to compensation, usually in the form of a reduction of the rent; or perhaps such improvements might go to the right to a further statutory tenancy (depending on the legislation in the relevant jurisdiction). However, claims based on proprietary estoppel and/or restitution routinely fail to generate any further remedy for the tenant [see eg the Irish case of _O'Callaghan v Ballincollig Holdings_ (High Court, unreported, 31 March 1993, Blayney J) [1993] RLR 166 reproduced below; and discussed in a little detail in (1993) 15 DULJ (ns) 27, 38-40].

If termination of tenancy occurs otherwise than by the completion of the term, as by the serving by the landlord of a notice to quit upon the tenant, the lease and statute regulate what rights the tenant has. If the landlord is terminating for a cause such as the breach by the tenant of a condition of the lease (eg non-payment of rent), again, I still find it difficult to see what "losses" the tenant might have. Further, if the lease provides for the landlord's termination in other circumstances, if the landlord chooses to exercise this right, though the tenant has lost the right to occupation, there is still no loss since the bargained for lease was for the right to occupy until the landlord served the notice to quit.

For all these reasons, I am not sure that I fully understand the space in which the query can operate. Can someone enlighten me ?

Thanks

Eoin.

_________________________________

_O'Callaghan v Ballincollig Holdings_ (High Court, unreported, 31 March 1993, Blayney J)

The plaintiffs were tenants of the defendants. When the premises were damaged by fire in 1981 and 1983, the plaintiffs repaired the premises, spending £ 27,000 and £ 16,000 respectively. In a claim for a lien over the property in the amount of £ 43,000, it was

Held by Blayney J that neither "proprietary estoppel" nor "unjust enrichment" provided a basis for the lien.

1. The relationship of landlord and tenant existed at all times between the parties. The plaintiff had exclusive possession, and could have carried out any repairs they liked. The defendants had no right to stop them. It was thus not a case of the defendants standing idly by. "For if a stranger builds on my land knowing it to be mine, there is no principle of equity which would prevent my claiming the land with the benefit of all the expenditure made on it." (Ramsden v Dyson (1886) LR 1 HL 129, 141 per Lord Cranworth LC approved).

2. On the "unjust enrichment" claim, counsel for the plaintiff cited Rogers v Louth Co Co [1981] ILRM 144 and O'Connell v Listowel UDC (1957) Ir Jur Rep 43. The former concerned restitution of money paid under a mistake of law to a local authority, the latter concerned a quantum meruit for services rendered under a void contract (per O'Briain J, approving and following Craven Ellis v Canons [1936] 2 KB 403). Neither supported the plaintiffs' claim.

__________________________________

EOIN O'DELL
Barrister, Lecturer in Law

Trinity College
Dublin 2
Ireland

ph (+ 353- 1) or (01) 608 1178
fax (+ 353- 1) or (01) 677 0449
mobile/cellular (+ 353-86) or (086) 286 0739

Live Long and Prosper !!
(All opinions are personal; no legal responsibility whatsoever is accepted.)