The facts in brief
There was a written agreement that the defendant would grant the plaintiff a lease of a mill for seven years. One of the agreed terms was that the tenant would covenant to pay the rent quarterly in arrears, but that on demand he would have to pay a year’s rent in advance.
The deed giving effect to that agreement was never executed. The plaintiff went into possession and paid rent quarterly for over a year. The defendant then looked for a year’s rent in advance; the plaintiff refused.
The defendant distrained for the rent, an old common law remedy of seizing a tenant’s chattels for arrears. The plaintiff sued for wrongful distress and for specific performance, arguing that distress was a legal remedy unavailable where no lease had been executed.
What the court decided
The plaintiff lost. Had the lease been granted by deed, distress would have been available to the defendant, and because equity treated the parties as if the lease itself had been created, the distress was lawful in equity.
In the Court of Appeal, Lord Jessel MR explained that, since the Judicature legislation, possession is held under the agreement. There are no longer two estates, a common law tenancy from year to year arising from the payment of rent and a separate estate in equity: there is only one court, and the rules of equity prevail in it.
The tenant therefore held on the same terms in equity as if a lease had been granted, both parties admitting that relief was capable of being given by specific performance. He could not complain of the landlord exercising the rights a granted lease would have carried, and he was protected in the same way: he could not be turned out by six months’ notice as a tenant from year to year. The maxim behind the result is the familiar one: equity regards as done what ought to be done.
The ratio
Where an agreement for a lease is one the court would specifically enforce and the intended tenant is in possession under it, the rights of the parties to that agreement are governed by its terms as though the lease had in fact been granted, each side taking the remedies and protections an executed lease would have carried.
The reasoning turns on the fusion of common law and equity in a single court system. Lord Jessel MR’s point that the tenant could not be turned out on six months’ notice is the mirror image of the holding rather than a separate ruling, and nothing was decided about third parties.
Statutory basis
The rule earns its place in Irish law because leases carry statutory formalities. Section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act, Ireland, 1860 requires that every lease or contract intended to create the landlord and tenant relationship, for a freehold estate or interest or for any definite period other than from year to year or a lesser period, be by deed executed or by note in writing signed by the landlord or an agent lawfully authorised in writing.
Periodic tenancies and tenancies for less than a year fall outside s.4. Where the section does apply and no deed or signed note exists, there is no lease at law. Section 62(1) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 makes the general point: subject to section 63, a legal estate or interest in land may only be created or conveyed by a deed, the formalities for which are in s.64 from 1 December 2009.
The contract behind the lease is governed by section 51 of the 2009 Act, which carried forward the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds 1695 when the 2009 Act repealed it: no action may be brought to enforce a contract for the sale or other disposition of land unless the agreement, or some memorandum or note of it, is in writing and signed by the person against whom the action is brought or an authorised agent. Section 51(2) provides that this does not affect the law on part performance or other equitable doctrines, which is the doorway the rule comes through. Section 51(3) adds that a deposit is not necessary.
The relationship itself is contractual in Ireland: section 3 of Deasy’s Act deems it founded on the express or implied contract of the parties and not on tenure or service. Equity and the common law have been administered together here since the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, equity prevailing on conflict, so the English reasoning transfers without strain.
What it is authority for
It is authority that an enforceable agreement for a lease is, between the parties, almost as good as a formal lease; that their rights are measured by that agreement rather than by a tenancy implied at common law from the payment of rent; and that the landlord may enforce the covenants and remedies the executed lease would have given.
It is not authority that the tenant has a legal estate. Section 62(1) still requires a deed, so what the agreement produces is an equitable lease. Nor is it authority that the rule binds the world: it applies to the parties to the original agreement, and a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the equitable interest takes free of it.
It is not authority that relief follows as of right: equitable remedies are discretionary, the claimant must come with clean hands, and specific performance is granted only where damages would be inadequate, which is usual in land contracts because land is unique. Nor does it convert a loose permission to occupy into a tenancy; the parties must have intended a lease.
Where it sits against later cases
The rule continues to represent the position as a matter of Irish law. In Montgomery v Shepperton Investment Company Ltd July 11, 1995 (HC) IE · High Court Geoghegan J relied on it to grant judgment for breaches of covenant relating to the closure of the Tallaght Town Centre.
The Irish limits were set out in Ó Siodhachain v O’Mahony [2002] 4 IR 147 IE · High Court. Kearns J held that the rule had no application where the parties did not intend to create a lease, and that the doctrine in any event depends on specific performance being available in the particular case, a matter within the court’s discretion, which he declined to exercise for the plaintiffs.
The Alfred Beit Foundation v Egar [2021] IEHC 65 IE · High Court polices the agreement itself. On applications for interlocutory injunctive relief, Keane J held there was no evidence of an agreement for a lease: a verbal statement that the defendant could farm the lands for as long as he desired was not an accomplished agreement for the grant of a lease, and the maxim applies only where a person is under an enforceable obligation with which he has not complied.
An attempt to widen the scope of the rule was rejected by Haughton J in Blackrock Hospital v Sheehan [2017] IEHC 387 IE · High Court. All three are High Court decisions: they are Irish authority, but they do not bind the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, and the rule has not been displaced by statute.
Running alongside is Hayes v The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government [2020] IECA 54 IE · Court of Appeal, where Baker J restated that the relationship is founded on contract and that actual payment of rent is not necessary to create it. That contractual starting point is why a proved agreement can carry so much weight: see leases and forfeiture.
Key authorities
- Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 Persuasive · England — an agreement for a seven year lease of a mill was never executed by deed; the tenant took possession and paid rent. Equity treated the parties as if the lease had been granted, so the distress was lawful.
- Ó Siodhachain v O’Mahony [2002] 4 IR 147 IE · High Court — the leading Irish restriction: no lease intended, no rule, and it depends on specific performance being available, which is discretionary.
- The Alfred Beit Foundation v Egar [2021] IEHC 65 IE · High Court — a statement that a man could farm lands for as long as he desired was not an agreement for a lease; without an enforceable obligation the maxim has nothing to act on.
- Blackrock Hospital v Sheehan [2017] IEHC 387 IE · High Court — an attempt to widen the scope of the rule was rejected.
- Montgomery v Shepperton Investment Company Ltd July 11, 1995 (HC) IE · High Court — the rule applied to give judgment for breaches of covenant over a shopping centre closure.
- Hayes v The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government [2020] IECA 54 IE · Court of Appeal — the relationship rests on the express or implied contract of the parties; actual payment of rent is not essential to create it.
How it is examined
This is regularly set as a standalone short note on Irish land law papers, worth about half of a 25 mark question, and it also appears inside problem questions.
The issue-spotting cue. A draft lease or agreement never signed or executed by deed; an occupier who went into possession and paid rent; a landlord later enforcing a term of the unexecuted document, or an occupier claiming the protections of a lease.
The order of attack. Start with the formality problem: s.4 of Deasy’s Act and s.62(1) of the 2009 Act mean no deed, no legal lease. Then the maxim and what Walsh v Lonsdale decided on its facts, naming Lord Jessel MR and the distress point. Then the statutory doorway in s.51(2). Then the conditions: an enforceable agreement, an intention to create a lease, specific performance available. Then the Irish reception through the High Court authorities, and close on the limits.
Related Land Law notes: leases and forfeiture · Irish Shell & BP Ltd v John Costello Ltd · registration of title · all free Land Law notes.
Need the full leases and forfeiture topic?
The leases module works through Deasy's Act and the creation of a lease, equitable leases, express and implied covenants, determination, and forfeiture with relief against forfeiture.
see the full library →Frequently asked questions
Is Walsh v Lonsdale still good law in Ireland?
Yes. It is an English Court of Appeal decision and so persuasive only, but it continues to represent the position as a matter of Irish law. The High Court applied it in Montgomery v Shepperton Investment Company Ltd, and restated its limits in Ó Siodhachain v O'Mahony. An attempt to widen its scope was rejected in Blackrock Hospital v Sheehan.
What is the difference between a legal lease and an equitable lease?
A legal lease satisfies the formalities: section 4 of Deasy's Act requires a deed or a note in writing signed by the landlord or an authorised agent, and section 62(1) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 says a legal estate may only be created by deed. An equitable lease arises where those formalities fail but equity enforces the agreement. It binds the parties, not the world.
Does the rule apply if the parties never intended a lease?
No. Kearns J held in Ó Siodhachain v O'Mahony that the rule had no application where the parties did not intend to create a lease. Keane J took the same approach in The Alfred Beit Foundation v Egar, holding that a statement that a man could farm the lands for as long as he desired was not an agreement for the grant of a lease.
Does an equitable lease bind someone who buys the landlord's interest?
Not necessarily. The rule operates between the parties to the original agreement. A bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the equitable interest takes the land free of it, so the protection an occupier gets from the rule can be lost when the reversion changes hands. Priority questions are resolved by the registration rules rather than by the rule itself.
Why does specific performance matter to the rule?
Because the rule treats the parties as if the court had already ordered the lease to be granted. Kearns J held that the doctrine is dependent upon the availability of the remedy of specific performance in the particular case, and that is discretionary. Specific performance is refused where damages would be adequate or where the claimant has not come to equity with clean hands.
Get the free exam-answer cheat sheet
Get the free one-page exam-answer cheat sheet by email, plus new case explainers as they go live and a heads-up before each sitting. No spam.