Docklands Solicitor

The tenant, T, an electricity supplier, became the tenant of three contiguous plots of land (plots 1, 2 and 3) in 1953 for a term of 42 years. Under its lease, T was granted rights of way over a neighbouring plot (plot 4), and was also granted the right to lay and maintain cables through plot 4. T built an electricity sub-station on plot 2 and laid cables through plots 3 and 4.



The freehold titles were later sold to separate buyers, and T purchased the freehold to plot 2. Some other person, L, purchased the freeholds of plots 1, 3 and 4. T1's tenancy was due to be expired in 1994 but since no notice to quite was served on T and T continued to occupy the premises, the tenancy continued.



T brought a claim for the exercise of its rights over plots 3 and 4. L had argued that the tenancy in respect of plot 2 had merged with the freehold to plot 2 when T had purchased that freehold, meaning that the tenancy had ended. The judge found in T's favour on the basis that the tenancy under which T held the rights continued to exist; the judge held that although in principle there could be such a merger, that had not happened in the instant case because T did not form the intention for the tenancy to merge with the freehold.



The moral of the story: whereas the ordinary rule at law is that the coalescence of a lease and its reversion in the same person will result in a merger and the tenancy comes to an end, in equity it is open to that person to form an intention that there should be no such merger.

Labels: coalescence of lease, easements, Reversions, Tenancy