Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd v George
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1991 |
| Date | 26 April 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Farquharson and Lord Justice Beldam
Landlord and tenant - regulated sub-tenancy - loss of statutory protection
Where a head tenant surrendered his tenancy, which was not a statutory tenancy, before the expiry of a regulated sub-tenancy, the sub-tenant could not claim the protection of the Rent Acts against the head landlord after the expiry of the sub-tenancy.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing an appeal by the tenant, Mr David Charles George, against the order of Judge Dobry on May 21, 1990 at Bloomsbury County Court holding that the landlords, Bromley Park Garden Estates Ltd, were entitled to possession of the flat occupied by Mr George at 237C Brecknock Road, Lower Edmonton, London.
Mr Winston Roddick, QC and Mr Philip Reed for the tenant; Mr Robert Reid, QC and Miss Karen Lord for the landlords.
LORD JUSTICE BELDAM said that one of the arguments put forward on behalf of the tenant was that the periodic tenancy under which he held the flat, initially from Barclays Bank plc and subsequently from Folkard & Hayward Services Ltd, to whom the remainder of the 21-year lease was assigned, was a tenancy to which the Rent Act 1977 applied; that on surrender by Folkard & Hayward on December 22, 1989 of the remainder of the term the tenant's periodic tenancy continued but with the rights and obligations under its terms being transferred to Bromley Park Garden Estates.
Mr Roddick acknowledged that at first sight the Court of Appeal decision in Cow v CaseyELR ([1949] 1 KB 474) required the court to reject that argument but he contended that that decision was reached per incuriam. There, it was held that when the interest of the sub-tenant was determined, he became a trespasser in the premises and not entitled to the protection of the Rent Act.
Mr Roddick submitted that the court's attention had not been drawn to section 139(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wellcome Trust Ltd v Hammad; Ebied v Hopkins; Church Comrs for England v Baines
-
Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council v Paice
...Acts." He then recited the facts and decision in Cow v Casey, referred to Pitallis v Grant 1989 QB 605 and Bromley Park Gardens v George [1991] 2 EGLR 95, and continued: "In my judgment those authorities are applicable by analogy. Conclusion I reach is that this tenancy is not a tenancy [of......
- Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Paice