Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 (CA)

Facts

  • Mr. Lonsdale (landlord) and Mr. Walsh (tenant) agreed on a seven-year lease of a mill.
  • The agreement specified that rent was to be paid quarterly in arrears, but a year's rent could be demanded in advance by the landlord.
  • No formal deed of lease was executed, but Mr. Walsh took possession and paid rent quarterly in arrears.
  • Mr. Lonsdale later demanded a year's rent in advance, relying on the agreement's terms.
  • Mr. Walsh disputed the demand, arguing that without a deed, the agreement could not be enforced as a lease at law and that he occupied only as a periodic tenant.
  • The dispute centered on whether the executory agreement without a deed created any enforceable leasehold interest.

Issues

  1. Whether an executory agreement for a lease, lacking a formal deed, can be enforced as an equitable lease.
  2. Whether the terms of the executory agreement, specifically the advance rent provision, are enforceable absent legal formalities.
  3. How the conflict between common law requirements for leases and equitable principles should be resolved following the Judicature Acts 1873-1875.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the landlord, Mr. Lonsdale, was entitled to enforce the terms of the executory agreement, including the right to demand a year's rent in advance.
  • The court stated that equity treats as done that which ought to be done, so a valid agreement for a lease is regarded as if the lease had been actually granted.
  • It was determined that the tenant held the premises on the same terms as if a formal legal lease had been executed.
  • The court confirmed that after the Judicature Acts, equitable rules would prevail over conflicting rules of common law.

Legal Principles

  • A valid agreement for a lease, even if not executed by deed, creates an equitable lease enforceable by the courts.
  • The doctrine "Equity looks on as done that which ought to be done" applies, treating executory agreements as if performed.
  • Following the Judicature Acts, where common law and equity conflict, equity prevails.
  • An equitable lease confers similar rights and remedies (such as specific performance and distress) as a legal lease, provided the agreement is valid.

Conclusion

Walsh v Lonsdale established that an agreement for a lease, although lacking a deed, is enforceable in equity as an equitable lease. The case affirms the supremacy of equitable principles over common law technicalities in property agreements, ensuring parties are bound by their valid agreements and reflecting the merger of law and equity after the Judicature Acts.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal