Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Housing - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 33 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 Barnes v Barratt; CA 1970 - [1970] 2 QB 657
 
Mountview Court Properties v Devlin (1970) 21 P and CR 689; [1971] CLY 10036
1970


Housing

1 Citers



 
 Southwark London Borough Council v Williams; CA 1971 - [1971] 1Ch 734; [1971] 2 All ER 175; [1971] 2 WLR 467
 
Picea Holdings Ltd v London Rent Assessment Panel [1971] 2 QB 216
1971
QBD
Lord Parker CJ
Housing
The court asked whether a rent assessment committee constituted under the Rent Act 1968 could act by a majority in determining a fair rent. Was the well established rule of law in Grindley controlled either by something expressed in this statute or by something to be collected from the nature of the power and the duty to be performed under it? Held: The rent assessment committee came within the general principle, and there was no reason to depart from it.
Rent Act 1968
1 Cites



 
 Mykolyshyn v Noah; 1971 - [1971] 1 All ER 48
 
Tormes Ltd v Landau [1971] 1 QB 261
1971


Housing

1 Citers



 
 Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government; CA 26-Jan-1971 - [1971] 1 All ER 1049; (1971) 1 WLR 433; [1971] EWCA Civ 11
 
Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1971] UKHL 3; [1972] AC 342; [1972] 2 WLR 71
16 Dec 1971
HL
Lord Donovan, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon
Housing, Discrimination
The council operated a housing policy which required applicants for housing tbe British nationals. Mr Zesko, a Polish national, complained that this was race discrimination. Held: The House declined to interpret "national origins" in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1968 so as to include "nationality": discriminating against the non-British was allowed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale observed: " . . I think that considerable caution is needed in construing a general statutory provision by reference to its statutory exceptions. 'Saving clauses' are often included by way of reassurance, for avoidance of doubt or from abundance of caution."
Lord Cross said: "There is no definition of national origin in the Act and one must interpret the phrase as best one can. To me it suggests a connection subsisting at the time of birth between an individual and one or more groups of people who can be described as 'a nation' - whether or not that constitutes a sovereign state. The connection will normally arise because the parents or one of the parents of the individual in question are or is identified by descent with the nation in question; but it may also sometimes arise because the parents have made their home among the people in question."
Race should be understood in the popular sense rather than an anthropological or biological sens
Race Relations Act 1968 1(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Redspring v Francis [1973] 1 All ER 640; [1973] 1 WLR 134; [1973] 117 Sol Jo 57
1973
CA

Housing
The landlord sought possession of the protected tenancy, offering what he described as suitable alternative accomodation. The tenant was an elderly lady who had lived in the property on a quiet residential street for 30 years. Held: Possession was refused. A court when assessing the suitabiity of alternative accomodation offered by a landlord may take into account the character of the neighbourhood of the new premises, which in this case had a nearby fish shop, hospital, cinema and public house all on a busy road. However objections must relate to the character of the new property itself.
1 Citers



 
 Heslop v Burns; CA 1974 - [1974] 1 WLR 1241; [1974] 3 All ER 406
 
Walker v Ogilvy (1974) 29 P & CR 288
1974
CA
Ormrod LJ
Housing
A tenant of a flat which he used principally at weekends and for short holidays. The tenant had another permanent residence. Held: Parliament in passing the Rent Act 1968 never intended to protect people in occupation of what were in effect holiday houses.
Rent Act 1968
1 Citers


 
Salford City Council v McNally [1975] 1 WLR 365
19 Dec 1974
QBD
Widgery LCJ, Melford Stevenson, Watkins JJ
Nuisance, Housing
cw Public Health - Nuisance - Complaint by tenant - Local authority's compulsory acquisition of house in clearance area - Local authority postponing demolition as house capable of providing accommodation of standard adequate for time being - House statutory nuisance - whether nuisance order appropriate
The local authority compulsorily acquired a house in a clearance area under the 1957 Act. They then decided that it provided an adequate level of accommodation and postponed demolition under the 1936 Act. The tenant claimed that it was a nuisance and that by virtue of what had already occurred, the council were fixed with notice. Held: The property was unfit for habitation. The standards in the two Acts were not of a different level.
Public Health Act 1936 94(2) 99 - Housing Act 1957 48(1) 188
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Metropolitan Properties v Finegold [1975] 1 WLR 349
1975
CA
Lord Widgery
Housing
The rental values of a block of flats were increased because of the presence nearby of an American school; the case turned on the equivalent provisions in the Rent Act 1968 to section 70(1) in the 1977 Act. Held: One must have regard to the sort of factors which tend to push rents up or down on the market, to the age of the premises, up or down according to whether the premises are old or modern, to their character and their locality, because a house situate in pleasant surroundings, and with the advantage of local amenities, may command a higher rent than an identical house in a less attractive setting. If the committee took the view that the presence of a school made the houses in the surrounding area, and in particular these flats, more attractive, and thus likely to command more rent, then so far as section 46 (1) is concerned the fair rent ought to reflect that factor. In subsection (1), any amenity,any advantage which the premises inherently have, in their construction, their nature, their scale, their situation, their proximity to a school, a zoo or a theatre, whatever it may be, all those factors which would tend in the market to increase the rental, are factors to be taken into account by the committee in fixing the fair rent. The presence of an attractive school would tend to put up the fair rent because it would be an amenity making the premises more attractive.
Rent Act 1977 46(1) 70(1)
1 Citers



 
 Ivory v Palmer; CA 1975 - [1975] ICR 340
 
Dyson Holdings Ltd v Fox [1976] QB 503; [1975] EWCA Civ 8
17 Oct 1975
CA
Lord Denning MR, James LJ, Bridge LJ
Family, Housing
The defendant had lived with the tenant for 21 years until his death. They were unmarried and had no children. Reversing the County Court judge, the Court of Appeal ruled that she was a member of his family. It was absurd to distinguish between two couples on the basis that one had children and the other did not. (Lord Denning) and "The popular meaning given to the word 'family' is not fixed once and for all time. I have no doubt that with the passage of years it has changed. The cases reveal that it is not restricted to blood relationships and those created by the marriage ceremony. It can include de facto as well as de jure relationships. The popular meaning of 'family' in 1975 would, according to the answer of the ordinary man, include the defendant as a member of Mr. Wright's family. This is not to say that every mistress should be so regarded. Relationships of a casual or intermittent character and those bearing indications of impermanence would not come within the popular concept of a family unit." per James LJ, and "Now, it is, I think, not putting it too high to say that between 1950 and 1975 there has been a complete revolution in society's attitude to unmarried partnerships of the kind under consideration. Such unions are far commoner than they used to be. The social stigma that once attached to them has almost, if not entirely, disappeared. The inaccurate but expressive phrases "common law wife" and "common law husband" have come into general use to describe them. The ordinary man in 1975 would, in my opinion, certainly say that the parties to such a union, provided it had the appropriate degree of apparent permanence and stability, were members of a single family whether they had children or not." (Bridge LJ)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Salford City Council v McNally; HL 1976 - [1976] AC 379
 
Bardrick v Haycock, Vernon and Robinson (1976) 2 HLR 118
1976
CA
Scarman LJ
Housing
The court considered the purpose of excluding from protection properties with a resident landlord. Scarman LJ: “… the mischief at which the section was aimed was the mischief of that sort of social embarrassment arising out of close proximity – close proximity which the landlord had accepted in the belief that he could bring it to an end at any time allowed by the contract of tenancy.” A good test for whether they were separate was whether there were two front doors.

 
Campden Hill Towers v Gardner [1977] 2 WLR 159; [1977] QB 823
1977
CA

Housing, Landlord and Tenant
A flat was let by an underlease for seven years. The lease excluded the outside walls of the flat, but the tenant covenanted to pay for repairs to the building through a service charge. The tenant refused to pay the service charge which included the costs of repairing a neighbouring block also (included within the definition of the premises by the underlease). Held: The court will ask whether, in the ordinary use of words, the part of the house at issue would be regarded as structure and exterior. In this case that included the outside walls, the outside of interior party walls, the outer sides of the horizontal divisions between the flat and the flats above and below, and the structural framework and beams directly supporting the floors, ceilings and walls. The landlord could only recover for those items which it was obliged to repair, namely the external parts of the flat within the underlease, and could not recover the cost of repairing those parts it was obliged to repair in any event under the section.
Housing Act 1961 32(1)(a) 32(1)(b)
1 Citers


 
Makins v Elson [1977] 1 WLR 221
1977


Housing, Capital Gains Tax
The Court had to consider whether the tax-payer was liable to capital gains tax upon the disposal of his mobile caravan. Held: The Act distinguished between a dwelling house and land.
Finance Act 1965 29

 
Cheryl Investments v Saldanha [1978] 1 WLR 1329
1978
CA
Geoffrey Lane LJ, Lord Denning MR, Eveleigh LJ
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Protection was sought under the 1954 Act for premises where the relevant occupation was partly residential and partly for the purposes of a business. Held: The Act will apply so long as the business activity is a significant purpose of occupation. It must be more than incidental. The business occupation must exist both at the time when the contractual tenancy comes to an end and the date of service of the notice of determination of the tenancy: "If the tenant continues the 'business occupation' (if it may be called that) thereafter, no further difficulty arises. What is the situation, however, if between the end of the contractual tenancy and the service of notice of determination by the landlord the business occupation ceases? Section 25(1) provides that the landlord 'may terminate a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies by a notice given to the tenant in the prescribed form specifying the date at which the tenancy is to come to an end...' If at the time the notice is served the business occupation has ceased, there is no 'tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies,' and nothing on which a section 25 notice by the landlord can bite. It seems therefore that the business occupation must exist both at the time, the contractual tenancy comes to an end and at the date of service of the notice of determination. It is necessary to point out, however, that in neither of the two cases with which we are concerned was there any change of purpose between the term date and the service of notice of determination. In each case the question is, was there or was there not a section 23(1) business occupation at the time the contractual tenancy ended?"
Lord Denning MR: "There was much discussion before us as to the meaning of the Business Tenancy Act (I use those words because I think 'Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II' is a little confusing), especially the word 'purposes' in section 23(1); and the time or times at which those 'purposes' had to exist; and the effect of a change by the tenant in the use to which he put the property. Could he take himself in or out of the Act at his option? I found all these matters so confusing that I do not propose to attempt a solution today. I am only going to take four simple illustrations to show how the statute works; for they will suffice for our present cases.
First, take the case where a professional man is the tenant of two premises: one his office where he works; the other his flat, conveniently near, where he has his home. He has then a 'business tenancy' of his office; and a 'regulated tenancy' of his home. This remains the situation even though he takes papers home and works on them at evenings or weekends and occasionally sees a client at home. He cannot in such a case be said to be occupying his flat 'for the purposes of' his profession. He is occupying it for the purpose of his home, even though he incidentally does some work there: see Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 at 155 per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest.
Second, take the case where a professional man takes a tenancy of one house for the very purpose of carrying on his profession in one room and of residing in the rest of the house with his family, like the doctor who has a consulting room in his house. He has not then a 'regulated tenancy' at all. His tenancy is a 'business tenancy' and nothing else. He is clearly occupying part of the house 'for the purposes of' his profession, as one purpose; and the other part for the purpose of his dwelling as another purpose. Each purpose is significant. Neither is merely incidental to the other.
Third, suppose now that the first man decides to give up his office and to do all his work from his home, there being nothing in the tenancy of his home to prevent him doing it. In that case he becomes in the same position as the second man. He ceases to have a 'regulated tenancy' of his home. He has only a 'business tenancy' of it.
Fourth, suppose now that the second man decides to give up his office at home and to take a tenancy of an office elsewhere so as to carry on his profession elsewhere. He then has a 'business tenancy' of his new premises. But he does not get a 'regulated tenancy' of his original home, even though he occupies it now only as his home, because it was never let to him as a separate dwelling, unless the landlord agrees to the change."
Geoffrey Lane LJ discussed the ddifference between premises occupied for carrying on a business and premises occupied for the purpose of a business: "It is obviously a very fine distinction, but the words in section 23 seem to have been used in an attempt to make it absolutely clear that activities on the premises which are merely incidental to residential occupation do not bring the premises within the section although they may properly be described as using them for carrying on a trade or business. The businessman, for example, who takes work home in the evening which he does in a study set aside for the purpose may very well be using the premises partly for carrying on thereat a business, but he could scarcely be said to be occupying the premises for the purposes of a business, any more than the person who watches the television regularly every evening can be said to be occupying his house for the purpose of watching television. It is only if the activity is part of the reason for, part of his aim and object in occupying the house that the section will apply. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest expressed the concept clearly when dealing with the meaning of the words of section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 in Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132: 'It seems to me, therefore, that the words "premises … used for the purpose of smoking cannabis" are not happily chosen if they were intended to denote premises in which at any time cannabis is smoked. In my opinion, the words "premises used for any such purpose …" denote a purpose which is other than quite incidental or casual or fortuitous; they denote a purpose which is or has become either a significant one or a recognised one though certainly not necessarily an only one.'
As is so often the case in matters of this kind it will in the end come down to a question of degree, and borderline cases will produce their usual difficulties."
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
1 Citers



 
 Somma v Hazelhurst; CA 1978 - [1978] 1 WLR 1014
 
Lloyd v Sadler [1978] 1 QB 774
1978
CA
Megaw LJ
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
One of two joint tenants under a tenancy protected under the Act, had left the property to get married and did not intend to return. The remaining tenant stayed until the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed possession, arguing that the remaining tenant was not a statutory tenant protected by the statute because she was not "the tenant". Held: Megaw LJ said that whilst it was a "remarkable fact" that "the Rent Acts throughout their long history have never made any relevant express provision relating to joint tenants or joint tenancies", "the ordinary law as to joint tenancy does not have to be, and ought not to be, applied in all its strictness . . it is permissible for the court to hold, if so to do makes better sense of the relevant statutory provision in its particular context, that one of those persons, by himself, may for certain purposes be treated as being 'the tenant'."
Rent Act 1968 3(1)(a)
1 Citers


 
Newham London Borough v Patel (1978) 13 HLR 77
1978


Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Section 189 of the Housing Act, which compels a local authority to serve a repair notice wherever they are satisfied that a house is unfit within the meaning of section 604, unless the house is beyond repair, may result in the lawful service of notices in relation to defects which fall short of breaches of the section 11 covenant.
Housing Act 1985 189 604(1) - Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11
1 Citers


 
Aldrington Garages Ltd v Fielder [1978] 37 P & CR 461
1978


Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Mr Fielder and Miss Maxwell together applied to take a self-contained flat. Each signed an agreement to pay £54.17 per month to share the use of the flat with one other person. The couple moved into the flat and enjoyed exclusive occupation. In terms if the couple parted and Mr Fielder moved out or his agreement was terminated was, the owner could require Miss Maxwell to share her living and sleeping quarters with a stranger or move out herself. They had exclusive occupation unless and until one of their agreements was terminated. Held: The right resreved by the landlord was contrary to the Rent Acts and was, in the circumstances, a pretence intended only to get round them.
Rent Act 1977
1 Citers


 
London City Properties Ltd v Goodman Unreported, 01-Jan-78
1978


Housing
The landlord sought to recover possession of the property subject to a protected tenancy on the basis that suitable alternative accomodation was available. Held: The tenant's own other property could be a possible suitable alternative.

 
Regina v Kensington and Chelsea (Royal) London Borough Rent Officer, Ex parte Noel [1978] QB 1
1978


Housing
A rent officer can investigate whether a tenancy is protected by the Rent Act 1977 in order to decide whether he has jurisdiction to fix the rent.
Rent Act 1977
1 Citers



 
 Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School; CA 14-Jul-1978 - [1978] 2 EGLR 61; [1978] CLY 2324; [1978] EWCA Civ 5; [1979] QB 56

 
 Carega Properties SA (formerly Joram Developments Ltd) v Sharratt; HL 1979 - [1979] 1 WLR 928; [1979] 2 All ER 1084
 
Helby v Rafferty [1979] 1 WLR 13
1979
CA
Roskill LJ
Housing
The court declined to hold that a man who had lived with a woman tenant for five years before her death were part of the same family because they had deliberately opted to retain their formal independence and they had not been recognised as being married: "but, be that as it may, it seems to me that this court has, by a majority, decided that a woman who has had a sufficiently permanent relationship with a man over a period of years, but has not been married to him, may, nonetheless, have acquired the status of a member of that man's family. Accordingly, logically it can be argued - and one sees the force of the argument- that if in such circumstances that applies so as to enable a woman to become a statutory tenant by succession of a man, so in similar circumstances it should equally apply to enable a man to become a statutory tenant by succession of a woman . . that being so, it seems to me it must be a question of fact and degree in each case - whether a sufficient state of permanence has been reached so that the surviving party can fairly be said in all the circumstances to be a member of the original tenant's family . . the case was obviously fully and carefully argued before him [the judge] and he, for the reasons which appear in his judgment, expressed the view that the necessary degree of permanence in this particular relationship had not been shown; and he accordingly held that the defendant could not be and was not a statutory tenant by succession."
Rent Act 1977
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Simmons v Pizzey [1979] AC 37
1979
HL
Lord Hailsham
Housing
As to houses in multiple occupation, "both the expression 'household' and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive".
1 Citers


 
St Catherine's College v Dorling [1980] 1 WLR 66; [1979] 3 All ER 250
1979


Housing
The college leased and let out a large house as sub-lettings for students. Each student paid a proportion of the rent to the college. Each lease made it clear that it was intended to be a house in multiple occupation, and that it was not let as a separate dwelling. The college aimed to pass on the benefit of the rent registration to the students. Held: The house had not been let as a separate dwelling and the college was not a protected tenant. The word dwelling included all the major activities of life, particularly sleeping, cooking and feeding and so a room which was devoid of cooking and a water supply and was unfurnished and not slept in was not a dwelling and the tenancy was not protected.

 
Carega Properties SA v Sharratt [1979] 1 WLR 3
1979
CA
Megaw LJ
Housing
The Court referred to the 'Cohen' Question: '. . it is for this court to decide, where such an issue arises, whether, assuming all the facts found by the judge to be correct, the question may, as a matter of law, within the permissible limits of the meaning of the phrase 'a member of the tenant's family,' be answered 'Yes.'"
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Tilling v Whiteman [1979] UKHL 10; [1980] AC 1; (1979) 250 EG 51; (1979) 38 P & CR 341; [1979] 2 WLR 401; [1979] 1 All ER 737
8 Mar 1979
HL
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman
Housing, Litigation Practice
The plaintiff owner of a property had commenced proceedings to recover the property from the defendant tenants. The plaintiff then applied to have a particular provision of the 1968 Act interpreted as a preliminary issue of law under O 33 r 2. Held: The House considered the risks of split trials. Lord Scarman said: "preliminary points of law are too often treacherous shortcuts. Their price can be, as here, delay, anxiety, and expense."
Lord Wilberforce said that the Judicial Committee had: "often protested against the practice of allowing preliminary points to be taken, since this course frequently adds to the difficulties of courts of appeal and tends to increase the cost and time of legal proceedings. If this practice cannot be confined to cases where the facts are complicated and the legal issue short and easily decided, cases outside this guiding principle should at least be exceptional."
Rent Act 1968
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.