Collier v Stoneman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE SELLERS |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1957 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1957] EWCA Civ J0717-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 17 July 1957 |
[1957] EWCA Civ J0717-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Jenkins.
Lord Justice Romer And
Lord Justice Sellers
Mr. J. E. APREO-MORRIS (for Mr. J.J. DAVIS) (instructed by Mr.D. K. Plunkett) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr. J. R. PHILLIPS (instructed by Messrs Wright Son & Pepper) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
: In this case the Plaintiff, Mrs. Gladys Lilian Collier claims that she is by virtue of section 12 (1) (&) of the Rent Act of 1920 the statutory tenant in succession to her late grandmother Mrs. Gangshaw of a dwellinghouse (which I will call "the flat consisting of two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor of No. 192, Fortnall Road, w.9.
The Defendant landlord, Mr. F.F.G. Gtoneman, disputes Mrs. Collier's claim on the ground that the facts of the case are not such as to entitle her to the benefit f section 12(1)(g) and in furtherance of this contention has purported to resume possession of the front room in the flat formerly used by Mrs. Langshaw as her bedroom.
In these circumstances the Plaintiff brought the present action against the Defendant in the Marylebone' County Court claiming a declaration of her title to a statutory tenancy of the flat upon the same terms as that held by Mrs. Langshaw at the time of her death and damages for trespass.
There was a Counterclaim upon which nothing turns.
The learned Judge hold that the plaintiff was not "residing with" Mrs. Langshaw at the time of her death within the meaning of Section 12(1)(g). Accordingly he gave judgment on the Plaintiff's claim for the Defendant with costs, and from that judgment (dated the l2th March, 1957) the Plaintiff now appeals to this Court.
The relevant part of Section 12(1)(g; of the Act of 1920 is in these terms:- "… and the expression 'tenant' includes the widow of a tenant who was residing with him at the time of hie death, or, where a tenant leaves no widow; or is a woman, such member of the tenant's family so residing as aforesaid as may be decided in default of agreement by the county Court".
I have read this provision as amended by section 1 of the Act of 1935, and should note that by section 13 of the Act of 1933 the claiming member of the deceased tenant's family must have been residing with the tenant for not less than six months immediately before the death.
It appears that Mrs. Langshaw, who had been living in the flat with her sister-in-law Mrs. Twyford since about 1941, was granted a new contractual tenancy of the flat after Mrs. Twyford's death in 1943, and later became a statutory tenant by reason of a notice of increase of rent.
For some years the back room was empty and in 1947 Mr. Langshaw allowed the Plaintiff and her future husband, to whom she was then engaged, to store their furniture in it.
The Plaintiff and Mr. Collier were anxious to get married and set up house together but had to postpone their marriage because they could find nowhere to live. According to Mr. Collier it was suggested by one of Mrs. Langshaw's daughters {who lived in the neighbourhood) that they might go to No. 192 and have the vacant room in the flat. This they did with the permission of Mrs. Langshaw, getting married in March 1950. In due course they had a son, born in July 1951.
The arrangement between the Coliars and Mrs. Langshaw was that the Colliers had the back room to themselves, Mrs. Langshaw had the front room to herself, and the whole party shared the Kitchen.
Mrs. Langshaw was 94 years of ago when she died on the 14th October, 1956.
In her Examination-in-chief the plaintiff said this: "he went to live at No. 192 so that I could help grandmother. He had a bedroom of our own Mrs. Langahaw slept In the other room. We all had our meals together in the kitchen. Mrs. Langshaw and I both did the cooking. We both did the shopping. I used to hand the rent to Mrs. Stoneman downstairs to hand to the landlord. I also handed her the rent book which my grandmother kept. Rent was 17s. 1d. when I went to 192. He paid Mrs, Langshaw l2s.6d. to help her out with the rent. The rent was 18s. when Mrs Langshaw died. At the date of her death I was paying her 13s.3d. per week". In Gross-examination she said:- "I carried up her coals. Her coal was kept separate from ours. Bought separately. My husband made a box for her own. She was a very independent old lady. She had her own windows cleaned by a cleaner. We made our own arrangements for window. cleaning. We had separate food cupboards. She thought it was fairest that way. We had our meals together. She usually cooked for herself. The sometimes had meals in her own room. The had an oilstove in her room and she sometimes cooked on it" and it, the and of her Cross-examination:- "I was not on bad terms with Mrs. _Langshaw during the last two years of her life. He did move some of her things out of the kitchen into her room. She never complained to me about it. It is a fact that for one reason or other she didn't go into the kitchen much as she got older". In re-examination she said: "I cooked her dinner the day before she died, I cooked more for her than she cooked for us. The furniture we had in our room was our own. We never had a Rent Book".
Mr. Collier in his Examination- In - chief said this:- We had our evening meal at 5. 30 or 6 p.m. when my wife was working Mrs. Langshaw usually cooked it for us Mrs. Langshaw had her evening meal with us usually. Sometimes in the evenings I went to sit in the front room with Mrs. Langshaw I made a coal box for her in about 1953. Before that our coal was kept with her coal. He only had a coal fire occasionally. I never brought her coal up - It was brought up while l was not in the house". In cross-examination he said:- "My working hours - 8 a.m. - 6.30 p.m. On Sundays Mrs. Langshaw invariably went out to her two daughters who lived in the same road. She would leave at about 12 noon and get back between 8 and 10 p.m. Sometimes she would stay for 2-3 days at a time with hot daughters or one of them. The armohair of Mrs. Langshaw's which was in the Kitchen was moved into her room at her request. This was 4-5 years before she died. I put an armchair in the kitchen to take its place out of our room Mrs. Langshaw stored our furniture for three years before we went to live there".
The Defendant's wife, Mrs. Edna Stoneman, said this in her Examination-in-chief:- "I knew Mrs. Langshaw very well. Mrs. Langshaw did most of her own work if she wasn't well I used to go and fetch her youngest daughter who lived at No. 102. I often went up to Mrs. Langshaw's room before and after Colliers arrived. I have several times seen Mrs. Langshaw cooking he:- own meals on her own oil stove in her own room. I went up to her room six days out of seven. She was invariably in her own room sitting by the window".
In the course of his Judgment the learned Judge said this:- "Mrs. Langshaw consented to their, that is the Colliers, making their matrimonial home in her book rooms where their furniture was still being stored. The Plaintiff and Mr. Collier were married and went to live in Mrs. Langshaw's back room in March 1960 and were allowed to share the kitchen with Mrs. Langshaw. There they have remained over since, and a child was born to them in July 1951. The only evidence of the arrangement arrived at between the Colliers and Mrs. Langshaw in March 1950 was that they paid Mrs. Langshaw 12s.6d. each week regularly when Mrs. Langahow's rent was 17s. per week and later 13s.3d, when Mrs. Langshaw's rent was increased to 18s. per week. According to the Colliers they never had a rent book. In fact, in return for their weekly payment, the Colliers had an unfurnished room, which they furnished with their own furniture, and the use of the Kitchen in common with Mirs. Langshaw. On these facts I was of opinion that I might well draw the inference that the Colliers had been given a sub-tenancy by Mrs. Langshaw; but in the absence of any evidence as to what was said at the time, I came to the conclusion that perhaps I ought not to go quite as far as that I was satisfied that was Langshaw was an old lady of independent a habits and way of life. She would not share anything. She insisted on her own housekeeping arrangements; She bought and ate her own food and had her own larder. She had the window of her own room cleaned by a cleaner. She may have had an occasional meal with the Colliers but mostly not. She was too old to get up to breakfast with them; they were both working and were out most of the day; in the evenings she usually had something in her own room. On Sundays she invariably went to spend the day with her youngest daughter, Mrs. Child (or to another daughter; who lived in the same street, and was away from 12 noon until about 10 p.m. On these facts it seemed to me to be difficult to say that the Plaintiff was residing with Mrs. Langshaw at the time of her, Mrs. Langshaw's, death; in my view; she was residing with her husband and their sschild in their matrimonial home which ocrtaimy did not include Mrs. Langshaw's room I was of opinion that as far as was physically possible in one flat, the Colliers and Mrs. Langshaw were living totally separate and independent lives, as independent households I therefore came to the conclusion though not without ionic doubt that the Plaintiff had failed to make out her case.
In reaching his conclusion to the effect that the Plaintiff had failed to ostublisn her claim to have been "residing with" Mrs, Langshaw within the meaning of seotion 12(1)(g) the learned Judge must, I think, have been considerably influenced by certain observations of this Court in the case of Edmunds v. Joncs which is unreported have for a brief note in the Law Times of 1st February, 1952. We have had the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Thomas
...the grant of the council house tenancy and it was held that section 87 did not protect the appellant. Kerr L.J. relied on the case of Collier v. Stoneman [1957] 1 W.L.R. 1108. In that case, it was held that the subtenant of part of a house was not "residing with" her mother in the whole hou......
-
Freeman v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington
...under these Acts were applicable to the present case. We were taken to the following (in some cases only by reference in later cases): Collier v Stoneman [1957] 1 WLR 1108, CA. Foreman v Beagley [1969] 1 WLR 1387, CA, Morgan v Murch [1970] 1 WLR 778, CA, Peabody Donation Fund Governors v Gr......
-
Morgan v Murch
...perfectly plainly that the word "resided" is to be given its ordinary, natural, common language meaning. For example, in the case of Collier v. Stoneman, which is reported in the Weekly law Reports for 1957, at Page 1108, Lord Justice Jenkins in a long and very carefully phrased judgment sa......
-
R (on the application of CN) v Lewisham London Borough Council; ; R (on the application of ZH) v Newham London Borough Council (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, interested party)
...statutory tenancy had to show that she had made her home in the premises. Swinton Thomas J (at p 90) distinguished the earlier case of Collier v Stoneman [1957] 1 WLR 1108 on its facts because Mrs Elliott had a tenancy of her own while in that case the claimant did not. He concluded (at p ......