Walsh v Lonsdale [1882]
Share
Walsh v Lonsdale [1882] 21 ChD 9 marked a pivotal shift concerning the application of equitable principles under the Judicature Acts. Central to this case was the establishment of the equitable maxim, "equity regards as done that which ought to be done," and the formulation of the doctrine of anticipation, which recognised the validity of specifically performable agreements to create or transfer property rights in equity, even if not fully effective at law.
The landlord, Lonsdale, and the tenant, Walsh, had entered into this agreement where the rent was to be paid for a year in advance. Despite the absence of a formally executed deed, Walsh was given possession of the premises and proceeded to pay rent quarterly. When Lonsdale sought payment of one year's rent in advance based on the terms of the executory lease agreement, Walsh contested, arguing that he held only an implied tenancy at law and was therefore not bound by the terms of the agreement.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Lonsdale, asserting his entitlement to claim the rent in advance. Sir George Jessel MR, delivering the judgment, emphasised a critical legal shift since the enactment of the Judicature Act. He underscored that under current legal principles, there no longer existed a periodic tenancy at law. Instead, he clarified that a lease established under such an agreement operates within the realm of equity.
The court applied the equitable maxim "equity looks on as done that which ought to be done", treating the parties as if they had a lease enforceable in equity from the date of the agreement to grant the lease. Consequently, Lonsdale could enforce the terms of the agreement as if a formal lease had been executed, thereby enabling him to claim the rent in advance as stipulated.
This ruling highlights the legal doctrine regarding executory lease agreements. Despite the absence of a formal lease deed, such agreements are recognised as creating equitable leases subject to the terms outlined in the contract. This principle empowers landlords to enforce agreed-upon terms, even in the absence of a formally executed lease deed, ensuring contractual obligations are upheld within the framework of equity.
The landlord, Lonsdale, and the tenant, Walsh, had entered into this agreement where the rent was to be paid for a year in advance. Despite the absence of a formally executed deed, Walsh was given possession of the premises and proceeded to pay rent quarterly. When Lonsdale sought payment of one year's rent in advance based on the terms of the executory lease agreement, Walsh contested, arguing that he held only an implied tenancy at law and was therefore not bound by the terms of the agreement.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Lonsdale, asserting his entitlement to claim the rent in advance. Sir George Jessel MR, delivering the judgment, emphasised a critical legal shift since the enactment of the Judicature Act. He underscored that under current legal principles, there no longer existed a periodic tenancy at law. Instead, he clarified that a lease established under such an agreement operates within the realm of equity.
The court applied the equitable maxim "equity looks on as done that which ought to be done", treating the parties as if they had a lease enforceable in equity from the date of the agreement to grant the lease. Consequently, Lonsdale could enforce the terms of the agreement as if a formal lease had been executed, thereby enabling him to claim the rent in advance as stipulated.
This ruling highlights the legal doctrine regarding executory lease agreements. Despite the absence of a formal lease deed, such agreements are recognised as creating equitable leases subject to the terms outlined in the contract. This principle empowers landlords to enforce agreed-upon terms, even in the absence of a formally executed lease deed, ensuring contractual obligations are upheld within the framework of equity.
