Wilkes v Goodwin: CA 1923

The supply of a cup of tea to a tenant each morning is not sufficient to constitute ‘board’ so as to take the tenancy out of statutory protection.
Unless the contrary intention appears, the law disregards certain things as de minimis. The principle applies where something is ‘so trifling in value, or in amount, as to be negligible’.

Bankes LJ
[1923] 2 KB 86, [1923] All ER 61
England and Wales
Cited by:
Dictum approvedWood v Carwardine 2-Jan-1923
The court held that trivial services, the amount of which could be measured, did not amount to ‘attendance’ within the meaning of section 12(2)(i) of the 1920 Act. The rule had to be applied with robust vigour in favour of the tenant unless the . .
CitedJohnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245816