FreeLegalWeb

S v Floyd [2008] EWCA Civ 201 is a Court of Appeal case in which the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is considered in relation to a mandatory Ground 8 possession claim by a private landlord.
In some ways, there is nothing particularly surprising in the case – the Court found that the DDA was not engaged [...]

The judge upheld the decision of an adjudicator that where parties had executed a written document that only contained some of the express terms of a contract there was no common mistake and no order for rectification was possible. Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 required a written document to incorporate all the terms the parties had expressly agreed.

The management company of an industrial estate sought to introduce a car parking scheme. The Respondent objected to the scheme particularly due to the imposition of an overnight fee. The judge found the scheme to be unreasonable on the basis the Appellant had not researched the proper local market rate for overnight parking. The Court of Appeal held that if the fees were reasonable it did not matter how they had been arrived at. The judge had reversed the burden of proof and it was for the objector to prove the scheme was unreasonable and not for the management company to have to show it was reasonable.

Where a transfer document contained covenants that defined a specified party as transferor and did not include successors in title, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the word “transferor” meant that specified party alone or also included successors in title. In this case the court determined that the original parties to the transfer never contemplated a situation where there would be successors in title and therefore the word “transferor” meant the named party only.