The relative legislation prohibited the requirement of ‘payment of any premium’ on the grant, renewal or continuance of any tenancy. Mr and Mrs White owned and lived in a house, but it was subject to a mortgage which was in arrears, and they decided that they had to sell, repay the mortgage and then rent a flat. They found a suitable flat, but the estate agents acting on the letting required them to sell their house through them, and to sell it for andpound;500 less than the fair market value, which they agreed to do, and did. The Court was asked inter alia whether this amounted to the payment to a premium, defined in part as ‘any fine or other like sum and any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent’, and was unlawful.
Held: The imposition of the obligation to sell the house at andpound;500 less than the proper price was the requirement of a premium. Lord Evershed MR said: ‘If I am right it must follow that the exaction of such a deduction must amount to a ‘payment’; and I find, indeed, no difficulty in so concluding: for the word ‘payment’ in itself is one which, in an appropriate context, may cover many ways of discharging obligations.’
Willmer LJ said: ‘Again, in my judgment, there can be no doubt that the defendants required a ‘payment’ to be made. It is true that no actual money passed, but I venture to point out that a taxpayer is none the less a taxpayer because income tax which he owes is deducted at source. Similarly, the plaintiff and his wife in this case none the less ‘paid’ andpound;500 because it was deducted from the purchase price of the house that they had for sale.’
Judges:
Lord Evershed MR, Wilmer, Ormrod LJJ
Citations:
[1960] 1 QB 1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark HL 10-Jun-2009
The claimant sought a discount on the purchase of his flat from the appellant. The discount was to be increased because of the authority’s delay in responding to his application. The respondent now appealed against a finding that it must repay the . .
Appeal from – Elmdene Ltd v White HL 1-Feb-1960
The landlord’s appeal failed. A payment can include a payment in kind. . .
Cited – Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues CA 14-Jun-2013
The Defendant took an assured shorthold tenancy of premises from the Claimant for a fixed term of one year less one day, paying a deposit of a month’s rent under the terms of the tenancy agreement at that time. At the expiry of the fixed term, by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Housing
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.374692