Feather Supplies Ltd v Ingham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE KARMINSKI |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Civ J0610-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 10 June 1971 |
[1971] EWCA Civ J0610-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal of plaintiff from judgment of Mr. Justice Paull on 2nd December 1970.
The Master of thr Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Salmon and
Lord Justice Karminski
Mr. R. P. GROUND (instructed by Messrs. Wainwright & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Plaintiff.
Mr. HUGH CARLISLE (instructed by Messrs. Forsyte, Kerman & Phillips) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Defendant.
THE MASTER of THE ROLLS: Feather Supplies Limited. own a building in Elnathan Mews, Formosa Street, W.9. They use the ground floor for their business premises and let off the first floor as a dwelling. It is a flat consisting of three rooms, a kitchen, a bathroom and a lavatory. The company let this flat to a Mr. Edward King Ingham for five years from September 1966 at a rent of £600 a year. But it is plain that Mr. Edward King Ingham did not mean to live in it himself. There were three young men who intended to occupy it — three medical students — Mr. E. K. Ingham's son, Jonathan, and two of his fellow students. The landlords were not ready to let it to the students themselves. They wanted someone of more standing to be responsible for the rent and other obligations of the tenancy. So they let it to the father, Mr. Edward King Ingham. He lives in Hertfordshire. The students lived in the flat.
Afterwards Jonathan himself applied to the Rent Officer to determine a fair rent. He did it without his father's knowledge, but his father afterwards ratified it. The Rent Officer thought that £600 was far too high a rent for this flat. It was in a bad locality. The landlords had done a good deal of work on it, but it was in a poor state. The Rent Officer said:
"I do not consider that the rent of £600 per annum, which was being charged, was a fair rent for this property and, indeed, if one were to apply the cost per square foot valuation, this would make this the most expensive flat dealt with in the Westminster registration area.
He came to the conclusion that the fair rent under regulated tenancy should be £250 a year.
The landlords appealed to the Rent Assessment Committee; but, before the case was heard, they instructed the solicitor to withdraw the appeal. They seem to have changed their mind afterwards;but at any rate they did not appear at the actual hearing. The Committee determined the fair rent at £250 a year. As a result, Mr. Ingham did not pay the £600 a year: he, only paid the £250.
The landlords now seek to get the full £600 from Mr. Ingham. They say that this flat was outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Officer or the Rent Assessment Committee. Their reason is because the tenant, Mr. Edward King Ingham, was never in occupation personally of the flat. These three young men were in occupation. The landlords submit that the statutory provisions for fixing a fair rent do not apply to any tenant who is not in personal occupation. They say, therefore, that they can sue Mr. E. K. Ingham for the whole rent.
Mr. Ground has put forward a sustained argument before us relying on the cases — we knew them well years ago — which culminated in Skinner v. Geary (1931) 2 K. B. 546. It was decided in those cases — by a beneficial pie of judicial legislation — that a statutory tenant is only entitled to retain possession so long as he — or his wife — is personally in occupation of the dwelling-house. If he puts in a relative (other than his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horford Investments Ltd v Lambert
...2 All E.R. 189, C.A. Edgware Estates Ltd. v. Coblentz [1949] 2 K.B. 717; [1949] 2 All E.R. 526, C.A. Feather Supplies Ltd. v. Ingham [1971] 2 Q.B. 348; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 362; [1971] 3 All E.R. 556, C.A. Goodrick v. Paisner [1957] A.C. 65; [1956] 2 W.L.R. 1053; [1956] 2 All E.R. 176, H.L.(E.).......
- Firstcross Ltd (Formerly Welgelegen Nv) v East West (Export/Import) Ltd and Another
-
Eileen O'Sullivan v Douglas Henry John Barnett and Eva Maria Barnett
...far as Christopher's occupation is concerned, he submitted that this did not count, relying on the dictum of Lord Denning MR. in Feather Supplies Ltd v Ingham (1971) 2 QB 348 that if a statutory tenant "puts in a relative (other than his wife) or a manager or licensee, and is not in occupat......
-
Firstcross Ltd (formerly Welgelegen N. v) (Respondents (Plaintiffs) East West (Export/Import) Ltd (Defendants) Kiku Mahboob (Appellant (Defendants)
...the opinions expressed by this court in Dando's case. It is thus, it seems to me, trite law, as Lord Denning, M. R. stated it in Feather Supplies Ltd., v. Ingham 1971 2 QB 348 at page 352(G): "…. that a statutory tenant is only entitled to retain possession so long as he – or his wife – is ......