Archive for 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.
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.
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.
Carphone Warehouse UK Ltd v Malekout, (CA) 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.