Guppys (Bridport) Ltd (Plaintiffs v Harry Brookling (Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,SIR DAVID CAIRNS |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Civ J0720-2 |
| Docket Number | 83/0331 Plaint No. 8100108 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 July 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Civ J0720-2
Lord Justice Stephenson
and
Sir David Cairns
83/0331
Plaint No.8100107
Plaint No. 8100108
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CAMBORNE AND REDRUTH COUNTY COURT
(MR. ASSISTANT RECORDER BURGESS)
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. J. HICKS QC and MR. GEOFFREY MERCER (instructed by Messrs. Walters and Barbary, Solicitors, Camborne) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Appellants) in both appeals
MR. M. HUTCHISON QC and MR. M. BRABIN (instructed by Messrs. Trott and Battell, Solicitors, Camborne) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Respondents) in both appeals
This is the plaintiffs' appeal against a reserved judgment of Mr. Assistant Recorder Burgess, given in the Camborne and Redruth County Court on 23rd June 1982. He had before him a counterclaim for damages by two respondents, a Mr. James and Mr. Brookling, the defendants to an action by the plaintiffs. It was agreed that Mr. James's special damage amounted to £521.13 and Mr. Brookling's to £453.06. In addition to those two sums he gave each defendant on the counterclaim general damages, which he categorised as exemplary, of £1,000.
Each defendant lived in one room of a building known as Lanyon House in Basset Road, Camborne, as apparently did, at any rate at some time or another, fourteen others; with those others the two defendants shared various common facilities. The building also provided room on the ground floor for three shops. The plaintiffs bought the building from another company called Toy Holdings (Camborne) Ltd on 29th September 1980; they bought it with knowledge of two problems. The first was that there were up to sixteen occupants—I do not think the evidence is quite clear as to how many there were at the time—of individual rooms in the building, which was obviously a building in multiple occupation. The second problem was that the Kerrier District Council had on 30th April 1980 served on their predecessors two notices under s. 15 and 16 of the Housing Act 1961 as amended by the Housing Act of 1969. The first was a notice under s.15, "requiring execution of works to render premises reasonably suitable for occupation by the persons or households occupying them", and it required Toy Holdings to take notice that
"(1) In the opinion of the Kerrier District Council the above-mentioned premises…..are so far defective with respect to the matters set out in Schedule 1 to this notice, having regard to the number of individuals or households (or both) accommodated for the time being therein, as not to be reasonably suitable for occupation by those individuals or households.
"(2) the works specified in Schedule 2 to this notice are, in the opinion of the Council, required to render the premises reasonably suitable for such occupation
"(3) the Council, in pursuance of section 15(1) of the Housing Act, 1961, as amended by section 58 of the Housing Act 1969, require you within a period of twenty-six weeks from the date of this notice to execute the said works".
The defects were described, under the heading "personal washing facilities" as: Lack of wash hand basins and lack of bathroom accommodation and, under the heading "drainage and sanitary conveniences", lack of WC accommodation, and the works that were specified as being required to comply with the notice were: Supplying and fixing wash hand basins with hot and cold running water and so on, in connection with the drainage system; water closets to the ratio of one to six persons and so on and bathing accommodation in the ratio of one bath per eight occupants.
The second notice was a notice under s.16 of the Act, requiring the provision of the necessary means of escape from fire in a house of multiple occupation. That required Toy Holdings to take notice that the council considered that the house was not provided with such means of escape from fire as the council considered necessary, and in that notice the council specified, in a schedule to the notice, the works which they said were required. I need not read those, but they are in fact long and detailed, containing altogether seventeen items.
There is to my mind no doubt, on all the material which the judge had before him, that the appellant plaintiffs bought this building with the intention of converting it from a house in multiple occupation, including shops, into a building consisting of seven self-contained flats. They produced a scheme which would have the effect of removing the fire risks and the inadequate washing and sanitary facilities which concerned the District Council, and the scheme which they produced undoubtedly had the support of the Council. But, as Mr. Hutchison for the defendants has pointed out, the plaintiffs' scheme certainly did not simply comply with the requirements of the Council as set out in the two notices, but indeed superseded them, or rendered them otiose, by the radical reconstruction and adaptation of the building which the scheme intended should be carried out. It was plain, and must have been plain to the plaintiffs, that the individuals occupying the building at the time when they bought it from Toy Holdings, would not be suitable or possible occupants or tenants of the proposed seven flats; they would not be able to afford to occupy those flats; they were not the sorts of persons who could fit into the converted building at all, and so they had to be evicted.
On 3rd October 1980, just after the plaintiff company had bought the premises, Mr. Parlett, the director of the plaintiff company, whose affidavit and whose oral evidence was before the learned judge, wrote letters to each defendant in these terms; I read from p.24 of bundle 3:
"As you probably know, on September 29th we purchased 13 Basset Road from Messrs. Toy Holdings Ltd., and from that date became your new landlord.
"As you may also know, there have been various notices served on the previous owners by the Council. One of these refers to Fire precautions, and the other to bath and washing facilities. These notices have to be complied with, and I shall shortly be discussing them with the Council to see what exactly has to be done. I cannot say at this stage what will be required, but it is almost certain that some changes to room occupation will be necessary. As soon as I know what is involved I will write you again.
"I understand that you have paid rent up to 29th September to Toy Holdings, so from that date you will be required to make payment to us. Your rent has been paid weekly in the past, but we prefer to be paid monthly. Until now you have paid £6.95 per week. This will now be £30.11 per month there being four and one third weeks in each month. Rent should please be paid by the 29th of each month, and if you are in any difficulties which may cause delay you should please write to me at this address.
"I am enclosing a paying in book to enable you to pay your rent to any branch of Midland Bank Ltd. There is one close by at the corner of Fore Street.
"If you have any problems or difficulties please do not hesitate to write to me about them and I will do my best to help. I am usually in Camborne every week and shall be glad to call on you by appointment."
That extremely friendly and polite letter gave the defendants no hint whatever that their occupation would have to cease and that they would be turned out of these premises—out of the single rooms which they had occupied, Mr. James since 1971 and Mr. Brookling since 1972. Mr. James was a man of about 80 and Mr. Brookling a man in his middle 60's.
Yet, on 25th November 1980 both the defendants received what must, I think, have surprised them, namely, notices to quit. I read one of them from p.25 of the third bundle:
"We, Guppys (Bridport) Ltd,…..hereby give you notice to quit and deliver up possession of the room and premises, with the appurtenances, situate at Lanyon House, 13 Basset Road, Camborne, in the county of Cornwall, which you hold from us as tenant thereof, on the 29th day of December 1980.
"(The information prescribed by the Notices to Quit (Prescribed Information)(Protected Tenancies and Part VI Contracts) Regulations 1975 is contained in the Schedule hereto).
"Dated the 25th day of November 1980".
And Mr. Parlett signed that notice for the plaintiffs. Under his signature is a schedule setting out the prescribed information, treating the tenancy as a protected tenancy and the recipient of the Notice to Quit as a protected tenant.
Every occupant appears to have acted on the Notice to Quit and left the premises, except the two defendants and one other, whose case is no longer relevant.
So a month after the notices to quit expired on 29th December 1980, namely on 20th January 1981, the plaintiffs claimed possession in the County Court of the two rooms which the defendants occupied, in actions against each of them.
It will be clear from what I have said that so far there had been no question but that the defendants occupied their rooms as tenants. Toy Holdings had in fact provided them with rent books; the defendant James had been provided with what was called a Rent Agreement; I do not think there is any date to it but it was a Rent Agreement accepted by both parties, signed by Mr. James and by Toy Holdings, of which the second paragraph began: "We the undersigned, being the Landlord and Tenant respectively, hereby agree that the rental" and so on. Mr. James had applied to the rent officer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fearn and Others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
...Studies in Property Law, vol 10 (2019) 71, 81–83. So, for example, a nuisance may be caused by obstructing access to land (eg Guppys (Bridport) Ltd v Brookling (1983) 14 HLR 1); by a withdrawal of support for the claimant's land (eg Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough Borough Council [2000......