5. Waste

Waste is an act, or a failure to act, that changes the character of the land, usually to the loss of the person entitled afterwards. The remainder or the reversion is what the doctrine protects.

It divides into four.

Ameliorating waste improves the land. Pulling down a useless building and putting up a better one can be ameliorating waste. In Doherty v Allman a long lessee converted dilapidated stores into dwelling houses. The House of Lords refused an injunction. Equity will not stop a change that improves the inheritance.

Equitable waste is malicious or wanton destruction. A tenant who is made unimpeachable of waste at law can still be stopped in equity from pulling the house to pieces out of spite. Turner v Wright is the illustration.

Permissive waste is neglect. The tenant lets the land fall into decay. It is an omission, not a positive act. Woodhouse v Walker is cited for the liability of a tenant for life who is under an obligation to repair.

Voluntary waste is a positive act that damages the land: opening new mines, cutting timber that is not ripe to cut, pulling down buildings. Bacon's Abridgement treats it as an act that alters the land to its disadvantage.

The person entitled in remainder sues for damages or an injunction. The grant itself can change the position. A tenant "without impeachment of waste" is freed from liability for voluntary waste at law, but not for equitable waste. A tenant impeachable of waste is liable in the ordinary way.

The same idea appears in the fee simple, but the other way round. Challis wrote that a fee simple includes the right to commit unlimited waste. Society does not in fact allow that. Nuisance, statute and planning law are the modern restraints. Waste, as a doctrine, is aimed at the limited owner, not at the fee simple owner.