ABSTRACT
Such was the conclusion of Denning J in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd.85 Under the terms of a lease entered into in 1937, the defendant tenant agreed to pay a yearly ground rent of £2,500 for a block of flats for a period of 99 years. In early 1940, due to the wartime conditions then prevailing, only very few of the flats had been leased to tenants and it became apparent that the defendant was not in a position to pay the annual rent. Discussions took place between the defendant and the plaintiff landlord, in which it was agreed that the rent would be halved as from January 1940. By 1945, all the flats were let, but the defendant was still paying only £1,250 per annum and the plaintiff served notice in September 1945 that the rent should be restored to £2,500 per annum and initiated via the instigation of the receiver ‘friendly’ proceedings to test the legal position. The defendant argued, inter alia, that the rent reduction applied to the whole of the term of the lease and that the plaintiff was estopped from demanding rent at the higher rate. Denning J held that the plaintiff was estopped from demanding the full rent while the conditions which gave rise to the agreement to reduce the rent prevailed. But since those conditions had ceased to exist by 1945, the plaintiff was at liberty to serve notice of an intention to charge the full rent:
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, p 134 Denning J: With regard to estoppel, the representation made in relation to reducing the rent, was not a representation of an existing fact. It was a representation, in effect, as to the future, namely, that payment of the rent would not be enforced at the full rate but only at the reduced rate. Such a representation would not give rise to an estoppel, because, as was said in Jorden v Money, a representation as to the future must be embodied as a contract or be nothing.
