Collins v Claughton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,MR JUSTICE ROXBURGH |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1958 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1958] EWCA Civ J1215-1 |
| Date | 15 December 1958 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1958] EWCA Civ J1215-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Jenkins
Lord Justice Romer and
Mr Justice Roxburgh
MR DONALD HERROD (instructed by Messrs Kingsley Wood & Co., agents for Messrs Wade, Kitson & Rigg, Leeds) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR C.P. HEPTONSTALL (instructed by Messrs Emsley & Sons, Leeds) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
: The judgment about to be read by my brother Roxburgh is the Judgment of the Court in this case.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Fred Claughton, from an order made by Judge McKee in the Leeds County Court whereby it was ordered that the plaintiffs should recover possession of a dwelling house known as 15, Wyther Lene, Leads.
The appellant is in occupation of the dwelling house. It was originally let to him on the 8th February, 1945. He was frequently in arrear with his rent, and there were proceedings against him in Court, and it is common ground that on the 10th May, 1956, he was statutory tenent of rent controlled premises. The appellant was also involved in matrimonial difficulties. His wife left home, but there was a reconciliation, and the appellant said in evidence that one of the terms of the reconsilliation was that the rent book should be put into her name. The appellant and his wife signed a letter to one of the two respondents (who were the landlords) dated the 10th May, 1956, in the following terms: "As I have come to an agreement with my wife on changing name on rent book into her name, Amy, would you be kind enough to grant same as she is going to see it is payed in the future herself. You will see I paid 6. 8s.0d. last Monday up to last month ending April 16th. I am enclosing book and stamped envelope for you so as to post it back. I am letting my wife sign this letter along with me"
The landlords readily agreed and the rent book was changed into the wife's name, and thenceforward she paid the rent, and the appellant did not. Both continued in occupation of the house, until in January 1957 the wife again left home. She took unsuccessful proceedings for desertion. In august 1957 she forced an entry, removed her furniture and never returned again, leaving the appellant still in occupation. He offered to pay rent but this was refused. On the 14th September, 1957, the wife gave notice to the landlords that she was terminating the tenancy on the 14th October, 1957, and accordingly the landlords claimed possession from the appellant upon the footing that he was a trepasser. The Judge held that the letter of the 10th May, 1956, acted upon by all parties operated as a notional surrender of the statutory tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy in the wife.
The foundation of the argument for the appellant, bath in the County Court and before us has been laid upon passages in the Judgment of the Court delivered by Lord Greene, Master of the Rolls, in Brown v. Draper, 1944, 1 King's Bench, p. 309, especially the following at page 313: "A tenant remaining in possession cannot lawfully contract not to avail himself of the protection which the Acts give him, if and when tee landlord takes proceedings against him to recover possession. If he wishes to place himself outside the protection of the Acts without putting the landlord to the necessity of taking proceedings, his proper course is to deliver up possession. Unless and until he does so, he is under the shelter of the Act, whether or not he so desires. No contract, and a fortiori, no mere statement of his wishes or intentions, can deprive him of the statutory protection".
In Brown v. Draper it was held that on the facts of the case the tenant had not delivered up possession, and the same conclusion was reached in Old Gates Estates Ltd. v. Alexander, 1950, 1 King's Bench, p. 311 (C.A). This is also true of Middle ton v. Baldock, 1950, 1 King's Bench, p. 657. But these cases bear no close resemblance to the present.
The questions involved in the present appeal are (1) whether (apart from the Rent Acts) the transaction indicated by the letter of the 10th May, 1956, which was acted upon by all parties, would have effected a surrender by operation of law of the appellant's tenancy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1) Molly Dibbs and Others (Plaintiffs) Respondents) v 1) Robert Campbell and Another Appellants)
...technical distinctions of this sort, however complicated the Rent Act provisions undoubtedly are. 27 Mr. Clark relied on the case of Collins v. Claughton [1959] 1 W.L.R. 145. In this case the premises were held by the husband as a statutory tenant living with his wife. He wrote to the landl......
-
Patricia Suzanne Hoggett (Petitioner) (Respondent) John Colin Hoggett (1st Respondent) Susan Wallis (Spinster) (2nd Respondent) Dennis Wallis (3rd Respondent) Albert Chandler (4th Respondent)
...That there must be a change of possession, or something which is equivalent to a change of possession, is shown by the case of Collins v. Claughton, (1959) 1 All England Reports, 95. These propositions were not contested, and I do not think it is necessary to cite any further authority for ......
- Dibbs v Campbell
-
70 NLR 313
...at 578.], there was a virtual taking of possession. " The principle was applied again by the Court of Appeal in Collins v. Claughton2[(1959) 1 All E. R. 95.] where Lord Evershed's dictum was cited at 98. Their Lordships conclude that the plea of estoppel succeeds. It applies only to the res......