Goodman v Evely and Another: CA 23 Jan 2001

The Court was asked whether a tenancy of a bungalow was a shorthold tenancy. It provided for an initial one year, and therefater from month to month. The tenant argued that it was not a tenancy for a fixed term.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. ‘ it is clear that this tenancy is not a periodic tenancy, pure and simple, because the automatic continuance at the end of the year is not for the same period, that is to say, continuation from year to year. It follows that it does not come within the exclusion to section 45(1). It follows that not being a periodic tenancy pure and simple, within the terms of the definition it is a fixed tenancy. That this is the intention of the legislature appears to me to be confirmed by the fact that section 20(1)(a) would be tautologous if the tenancy must be confined to a single fixed term for in that event it would have been sufficient to require ‘a fixed term tenancy granted for not less than six months’ thereby omitting from the definition the words ‘for a term certain of’.’


[2001] EWCA Civ 104, [2002] HLR 53, [2001] NPC 43, [2001] L and TR 31




Housing Act 1988


England and Wales


Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217931