Archive for June 2006
Walker v Birmingham City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 815 (22 June 2006)
The Appellant successfully appealed a decision that he was not entitled to succeed to a secure tenancy on the death of his mother. The Appellant’s mother had been a joint tenant and had become sole tenant on her husband’s death before secure tenancies were created. She was not a “successor” within s.88 of the Housing Act 1980.
Comments Off
Church Commissioners for England v Meya [2006] EWCA Civ 821 (21 June 2006)
The Claimant sought possession of a flat let to the Defendant under an assured shorthold tenancy. The term of the last agreement was one year less a day and rent was expressed as a yearly figure but was paid quarterly in advance. The landlord gave the tenant notice to quit but onyl gave a quarter’s notice. The question for the court was whether pursuant to section 5(3)(d) of the Housing Act 1988 the notice expired on the last day of a period of the tenancy. The Court of Appeal held that the rent was payable quarterly and that a quarter was a period of the tenancy. The correct notice had been given and possession was ordered.
Comments Off
Warborough Investments Ltd v Central Midlands Estates Ltd & Anr (Michael Briggs QC), 14/06/06
The landlord left a rent review notice on the Defendant lessee by leaving a copy at the demised premises which was a supermarket business. Service was effected by giving the copy to a person on the customer services desk. It was held that the valid service had been effected by the process server.
Comments Off
Carphone Warehouse UK Ltd v Malekout [2006] EWCA Civ 767 (14 June 2006)
Carphone Warehouse UK Ltd v Malekout, (CA) 14/06/06
Comments Off
Northstar Land Ltd v Maitland Brooks & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 756 (14 June 2006)
The appellant purchaser unsuccessfully appealed against the dismissal of its claim for specific performance of a contract for sale of a property. It was held that where the appellant’s solicitor had requested an extension of time for completion from the vendor’s solicitor, and the vendor’s solicitor had said they would take their client’s instructions but then did not revert back, no reasonably competent solicitor could have concluded from the silence of the other side that they were agreeing to postpone completion.
Comments Off