The tenancy had been an introductory tenancy. The council sought to terminate the tenancy, delivering the papers to the court before the anniversary.
Held: The proceedings were not begun under the section until the court issued the claim form. That had occurred outside the twelve month period, and the trial tenancy had expired and the grounds were not applicable.
Maurice Kay LJ denied that there was any analogy between the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and the provisions of the Act: ‘In my judgment there is no such analogy. That specific provision is, as my Lord has demonstrated, based on earlier authority [Pritam Kaur] decided in the context of the bringing of proceedings for the purposes of the Limitation Act. Here the language in issue is not the ‘bringing of proceedings’ but the ‘beginning of proceedings’. Where there is a general provision aimed at a point of time at which proceedings are started it follows that the assimilation of when proceedings are begun and when they are started is conclusive. The extended meaning, given specifically in the context of the bringing of the proceedings for the purposes of the Limitation Act, has no bearing on the present circumstances.’
Judges:
Chadwick, Kay LJJ
Citations:
Times 10-Mar-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 364
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant had delivered his claim form to the court, but it was not processed until after the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimant had brought the cliam within the necessary time.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194568
