Regina (on the Application of Morris) v The London Rent Assessment Committee and Another: CA 7 Mar 2002

Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, the principal submissions are based on a misreading of the statutory provisions. There is nothing in the provisions establishing or supporting a statutory principle of ‘once an assured tenancy, always an assured tenancy’. The provisions of Schedule 10 relied upon do not set a ceiling of andpound;25,000 on the amount of he annual rent which may be validly proposed or which the Committee ma validly determine. The case advanced by Mr Morris would, if accepted, produce the surprising conclusion that a tenant could remain in a high value property at less than the proper open market rent determined by the Committee. If the rent is determined by the Committee at a figure exceeding andpound;25,000, the landlord is not prohibited by statute from recovering it: the result is that the tenancy will simply cease to qualify for protection as an assured tenancy. The alternative submission on the validity of the notice fails because the rent proposed in the notice was, as the judge held, a realistic rent based on valuation evidence.’


Lord Justice Brooke, Mummery LJ


[2002] EWCA Civ 276, [2002] 24 EG 149




Housing Act 1988 14


England and Wales


Appeal fromRegina on the Application of David Morris v The London Rent Assessment Committee Admn 4-May-2001
. .
ApprovedRegina v London Rent Assessment Panel, Ex Parte Cadogan Estates Ltd Admn 4-Jun-1997
If the proper rent is higher than the statutory maximum, then the rent should be so set and the assured tenancy status lost. The Committee was not prohibited from assessing the rent of the assured tenancy arising on termination of the long tenancy . .
See AlsoMoore, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Rent Assessment Committee CA 17-Oct-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedHughes v Borodex Ltd Admn 25-Mar-2009
The tenant under a long lease appealed against a rent assessment which increased the amount payable to a level where she lost her security of tenure. She said that 17 year old improvements she had made should not have been taken into account.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168080