Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700302 |
| Date | 01 July 1953 |
| Published date | 01 July 1953 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
LETTING
AT
EXCESSIVE
RENT
NOT A CONTINUING
OFFENCE
R. v. Wimbledon Justices: ex parte Derwent
IT is well known
that
in virtue of
the
Building Materials &
Housing Act, 1945, where a house is built under licence
the
local authority
may
fix
the
selling price
and
rent
and
that
a sale or letting
at
an
amount
in excess of
the
price
or
rent
so fixed is
an
offence. The question raised
by
the
above case (1953, 1
All
E.R.
390) was whether aletting
at
an
excessive
rent
was
an
offence which was repeated
each time
the
landlord received his rent. This question is
of importance
to
local authorities as
by
s. 8 (2) of
the
Act
they
are specially charged with
the
duty
of securing its
enforcement.
On
the
12th June, 1952 informations were preferred
before
the
Wimbledon (Surrey) justices against one Derwent
alleging
that
on dates specified
in
the
informations being
between
the
1st November 1949
and
the
12th August, 1951
he
had
let
seven houses
at
rents in excess of
the
permitted
rents. Having regard
to
the
time which
had
elapsed
between
the
dates of
the
alleged offences
and
the
date
when
the
informations were laid,
the
informations appeared
on
the
face of
them
to
allege offences committed more
than
six months before
they
were preferred
and
accordingly did
not
comply within
the
requirements of s. 11 of
the
Summary
JurisdictionAct, 1848.
In
order
to
cure this very noticeable
defect
the
prosecution applied
at
the
hearing for leave to
amend
the
informations
by
adding
to
each of
them
the
words
"and
that
the
said house continued
to
be
and
is
still
let
at
the
said
rent
which is in excess of
the
rent
so
limited". The justices permitted these amendments
and
were prepared to proceed with
the
information. However,
it
was contended for
the
defence
that
the
amendments did
not
disclose
any
offence
and
the
justices adjourned
the
proceedings so
that
application might be made for
an
order
of prohibition on
the
ground
that
the
only offences dis-
closed were offences which
had
occurred more
than
six
229
230
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL LAW
months
before
the
informations
and
were accordingly
matters
over which
the
justices
had
no jurisdiction.
On
the
hearing of
the
application for prohibition on
the
23rd
January,
1953 reliance was placed (on behalf of
the
justices) on
the
case of
Stray
v. Docker (1944
K.B.
357)
in which, under
the
somewhat differently worded provisions
of s. 10 of
the
Rent
and
Mortgage
Interest
(Restrictions)
Act, 1920,
it
had
been held
that
aletting
at
a
rent
which
yielded an extortionate profit was an offence occurring
each time
the
landlord received his rent.
It
was further
contended
that
as
the
justices could
have
stated
a case
the
remedy of prohibition should
not
have been applied
for. A Court consisting of Lord Goddard C.J., Croom-
Johnson
and
Pearson
JJ.
rejected these contentions
and
directed
that
the
order applied for should issue.
Lord Goddard pointed
out
that
the
penalty
for
the
offences charged was serious. A defendant could be ordered
to
pay
such
sum
as would in
the
opinion of
the
court secure
that
he derived no benefit from
the
offence
and
in addition
could be fined £100 or three months' imprisonment or suffer
both
such fine
and
imprisonment. The Court had, how-
ever, been asked to place a"benevolent" interpretation
upon
the
Act.
It
had
been said
that
a local
authority
might
not
be able to discover within six months
that
an
offence
had
been committed.
But
his Lordship observed
that
by
s. 8 of
the
Act provision was made for registration
of
the
permitted
prices
and
rents as local
land
charges
which showed
that
Parliament
had
expected intending
purchasers
and
tenants
to protect themselves
by
searching
the
register. Much reliance
had
been placed upon
the
case of
Stray
v. Docker (supra)
but
the
words of
the
statute
there in question were different,
the
gist of
the
offence
under
s. 10 of
the
Rent
and
Mortgage
Interest
(Restrictions)
Act, 1920, being
the
receipt of an extortionate rent.
The
relevant words of
the
Act which
the
Court
had
to con-
strue
were
:-
"sells or offers to sell
the
house for a greater price
than
the
price so limited (hereinafter referred
to
as
,
the
permitted
price ') or, as
the
case
may
be, lets
or offers to
let
the
house
at
a
rent
in excess of
the
rent
so limited."
Lord
Goddard
stated
that
it
had
been
admitted
on
To continue reading
Request your trial