To what extent has the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 eradicated the perceived problems that existed in relation to the enforcement of leasehold covenants prior to the Act coming into force?

A good starting point would be to consider how the law prior to the LT(C)A 1995 coming into force operated and what the perceived defects with its operation were. This discussion could be enhanced by looking at Law Commission Report (no 174) in which reasons for reforming the law, and thus identification of perceived defects of the existing law, were outlined.

This discussion may include:

• identifying the perceived injustice of continuing liability of the original landlord (Stuart v Joy (1904)) and tenant (Thursby v Plant (1670)) long after they have disposed of the lease;
• problems with the inconsistent interpretation of the concept of 'touch and concern' (Spencer's Case (1583)) and having 'reference to the subject matter of the lease (ss 141 and 142 LPA 1925);
• the imbalance that exists between a tenant and landlord by virtue of the tenant retaining an ability to sue a landlord for breach of covenant committed whilst he (the tenant) was in possession even after the tenant has assigned the lease (City and Metropolitan Properties v Greycroft (1987) but with no similar right being afforded to the landlord after he assigns the reversion (Re King (1963));
• identifying problems with enforcement of covenants in equitable leases under the rules in Spencer's Case (1583).

You should then discuss how the LT(C)A 1995 addressed the defects that you have raised. Remember to make the point that any solutions which the LT(C)A 1995 provides to correct the defects are limited in their application to post-1995 leases. Be critical in analysing whether the statute went far enough in correcting the faults.

For example:

• is it right that the LT(C)A 1995 provides for automatic release from liability for a tenant upon assignment of his lease, but that release from liability must be applied for by a landlord upon assignment of his reversion?
• is it right that a tenant can be requested to enter in to an authorized guarantee agreements, therefore limiting the effect of automatic release from liability?

Is the LT(C)A 1995 itself free from any defects?

Draw appropriate conclusions.