Edmunds v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE HODSON |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1952 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1952] EWCA Civ J0114-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 14 January 1952 |
[1952] EWCA Civ J0114-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master Of The Rolls
(Sir Ravmond Evershed.
Lord Justice Jenkins, and
Lord Justice Hodson.
Counsel for the Appellant Mr PHILLIP WIEN instructed by Messrs Collyer, Bristow & Co. Agents for Messrs D. Grenville West & Chivers, Newbridge, Mon.
Counsel for the Respondent: MR RODERIC BOWEN instructed by Messrs Marchant Harries & A Co., Aberdars.
THE MASTERE OF THE ROLLS: This appeal raises a question of the meaning of the words "residing with" him or her in Section 12, sub-section (1) (g) of the Kent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, as applied to thefacts (and they are a little unusual) of this partioular case.
The premises with which the proceedings are coonceraed are known as No. 91a, Gedlys Road, Aberdere. Of those premises the two Plaintiffs are, and have at all material times been, the owners; but prior to her death In January, 1950, the tenant of the whole premises (that is the person who was a tenant of the whole house from the owners) was a Mrs Taverner, the mother of the present Appellant.
Looked at physically and without regard to any legal relationships which, as it subsequently emerged, had been created, it might have appeared that this case was the not uncommon one of an old lady (for such was Mrs Taverner) living in a dwelling-house and having residing with her. in the ordinary sense of that phrase, her own daughter, the daughter looking after her mother in the latter's old age; and. indeed, It would appear that the the proceedings began on the hypothesis that such had been the facta. But during the trial in the Pontyprldd County Court it became evident that the true faots were not quite ss simple as 2 have stated them; for it was proved quite clearly that the Defendant, Mrs Tavsrner's daughter, was not merely living with her mother (again in the ordinary sense of thet term) in her mother's house, but was in truth a sub-tenant of her mother of two rooms in that house, together with the added privilege or advantage of having with her mother the Joint use for cooking of the kitchen in the house. The two rooms which were the subject of the sub-tenanoy were identified as the middle room upstairs and the middle room downstairs.
The result of the proof of those facts was, as Mr wien says, this: According to the principle laid down by this Court in the well-known case of Neal v. Del Soto. the daughter was not the tenant of a dwelling-house within the meaning of the rent restriction legislation, for, as to one room, which was an essential part of any dwelling-house, to wit the kitchen, she was not the tenant at all. From that premise, according to Mr Wien, it must follow that in truth there was but a sharing of the whole house. Put somewhat differently, it follows, according to the argument, that the daughter, at least quo ad the kitchen (which, as I have said, was an essential element in any dwelling-house) was residing with her mother, and if she was residing with her mother at all so far as concerns No. 91s,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waltham Forest London Borough Council v Thomas
...the whole house just because her subtenancy entitled her to share the kitchen with her mother. In the case of Edmond v. Jones (Note) [1957] 1 W.L.R. 1118, also cited by Kerr L.J., a granddaughter was allowed to occupy one room in the house of her grandmother and it was held that the grandda......
-
Collier v Stoneman
...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 advantage of seeing the full transcript......
-
South Northamptonshire District Council v Power
... ... MR. TIMOTHY JONES (instructed by Messrs. Franklin, Piggott & Curtin, Solicitors, Banbury, Oxfordshire OX16 OAE) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Appellant) ... It is convenient to refer first to the one which is reported secondly as a note, Edmunds v. Jones , at p.118, which had been decided as long ago as 1952 ... 22 The defendant was the daughter of a deceased tenant of ... ...
-
Foreman v Beagley
... ... "residing with" according to ordinary notions and in particular with the passage in the judgment of Lord Evershed, Master of the Rolls, in Edmunds v. Jones (1957 1 Weekly law Reports at page 1120), where he says that they "do not, I think, involve any technical import or some meaning only to be ... ...