Chios Property Investment Company Ltd (Plaintiff v Miss A. Arranz Lopez (Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | SIR GEORGE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1987 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1987] EWCA Civ J1028-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 87/1042 415/87 |
| Date | 28 October 1987 |
[1987] EWCA Civ J1028-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT
(MR. ASSISTANT RECORDER MANN Q.C.)
Royal Courts of Justice,
Lord Justice Parker
and
Sir George Waller
87/1042
No. 8633675
415/87
MR. M. PIERCEY (instructed by Messrs. Wegg-Prosser & Farmer, London) appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff.
MR. S. DOUGALL (instructed by Messrs. Nathoo & Co., London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant.
This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Assistant Recorder Mann Q.C., sitting at Bloomsbury County Court. He held that the respondent, Arranz Lopez, is the statutory tenant of Flat 5, 24 Pembridge Square, London W2, in succession to Mr. El-Din. The judge held that she was a member of Mr. El-Din's family residing with him at the time of, and for a period of six months immediately before his death.
The background facts were that Mr. El-Din was an Egyptian. Miss Lppez who is Spanish came to England in 1980 or 1981 and met Mr. El-Din in March 1981. They saw each other regularly for the next two years and on the 10th February 1983, she moved to Mr. El-Din's flat with the intention of marrying him as soon as financial circumstances permitted. The judge found that she moved "with the intention of cohabiting with Mr. El-Din initially as his fiancee and thereafter as his wife when financial circumstances should permit, that by July 1985 or thereabouts, when it became apparent to Miss Lopez and Mr. El-Din that they were likely to become better off imminently, they resolved to marry and for that purpose to secure the blessing both of his family in Cairo and her family in Spain and that they both regarded their relationship at all material times as being permanent albeit that marriage was to be conditioned on improved financial circumstances."
The judge referred to the three recent authorities, namely Dyson Holdings Ltd. v. Fox (1976) 1 Q.B. 503, Helby v. Rafferty (1979) 1 W.L.R. 13 and Watson v. Lucas (1980) 1 W.L.R. 1493, and then set out the test as follows: "What the claimant has to show is that a sufficient state of permanence and stability has been reached in the relationship with the deceased protected or statutory tenant for it to be said that in all the circumstances the occupant was a member of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial