Hayman v Rowlands
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HODSON,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS,LORD JUSTICE DENNING |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1956 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1956] EWCA Civ J1220-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 20 December 1956 |
[1956] EWCA Civ J1220-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Denning
Lord Justice Hodson
and
Lord Justice Morris
Mr. J.G.K SHELDON (instructed by MEASRS Bower, Cotton & Bower, Agents for Mr. William J. Wade, Slough) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
Mr. CHRISTOPHER FRENCH (instructed by Messrs. Charsley Leonard & Co., Slough; appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
| (Appeal allowed. Net? trial ordered before a Judge other than His Honour Judge Hawlins. Appellant tohave caste of appeal. Appellant to pay ooats thrown away by non-appearance on 12th September. 1956, and of application on 3rd October, 1956. All other costs to be in discretion of Judge at new trial. coststo be set off). |
(on application by Appellant to adduce affidavit in Court of Appeal):
LORD JUSTICE DRNNING: An application has been Made to us to receive an affidavit from a solicitor as to what happened in the County Court, The Judge's note contains a abatement of the evidence given before him but no note of the reasons for his decision. It has been submitted by Mr, French, on behalf of the Respondent, that we ought not to look at this affidavit. He refers to the rule of this Court which says that the Judge's note has to befurnished and "in default of production of such a note" the Court of Appeal say hear and determine the appeal upon any other evidence or statement of what occurred before the Judge of the county Court which appears to the Court of Appeal to be sufficient. He says that here there is the Judge's note, and that therefore we ought not to look at any other evidence or statement I think that the rule only applies when there is a complete and full note by the County Court Judge. If his note is not complete and is only a part of a note then we habitually allow it to be supplemented by the note of Counsel or by any other means which appears to us to be suitable. In this case, just as Counsel's notes can be adduced before us, so I think, in a case where Counsel were not engaged, an affidavit from the solicitor concerned can be received. It ought - especially if there is any difference - to be submitted to the County Court Judge beforehand, for his comments. That has not been done in this case. But I do not think we need stand the case over for that to be done. The affidavit has been in the hands of the other side for nearly three weeks now, and if they had anything to query in it they ought to have queried it before now.
I think, therefore, that we should receive this affidavit.
I agree.
I agree.
(on the appeal) (without calling upon. Counsel to reply).
Mr. Hayman is the landlord of a house in Windsor. He only bought at three years ago, and he seeks to eject the tenant, Mr. Rowlands, on the ground of non-payment of rent. Mr. Rowlands has been there for nine and a half yearn as tenant of the house and is clearly protected under the Rent Restrictions Acts. He withheld the rent for some months at the beginning: of this year because the premises were out of repair, as he said. That is not in law a good ground for not paying rent. So the landlord summoned him in the County Court. On the 12th September the case came on for hearing, but unfortunately Mr. Rowlands, the tenant, did not appear, we now knew from his affidavit that the reason he did not appear we that he had misread the notice: he thought the hearingwas for October, not September. At all events, he was not there on the 12th September, and the Judge accordingly gave judgment for the landlord for £30. 17s. 10d., the arrears of rent, and ordered Mr. Rowlands out by the 10th October, only giving him just under a month.
Then Mr. Rowlands got to know of the Order which had been made against his, he promptly went to his solicitor. The solicitor told him that the fact that the promises were not in repair was not a rood ground for withholding the rent, and he told him to pay the rent into Court. He promptly paid into Court on the let October the full amount of the rent, £30. 17s. 10d; and he applied to the Judge two days later, on the 3rd October, 1956, for a new trial of the case. Mr. Rowlands gave evidence as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Onyenmezu v Firstcare Ireland Ltd
...failure to attend that is down to mere inadvertence. Having applied the approach of Denning LJ (as he then was) in Hayman v Rowlands [1957] 1 All E.R. 321, Humphreys J held that it was clear that the order should be set aside and that it would be unjust to make any other decision. Humphreys......
-
Geraldine Nolan v Joseph Carrick and Others
...at relevant time - Schafer v Blyth [1920] 3 KB 140; Wise v Swami Omkarananda (Unrep, Popplewell J, 21/2/1985); Hayman v Rowlands [1957] 1 All ER 321; Shocked and Another v Goldschmidt and Another [1994] Times (4/11/1994); In Re Greendale Developments Limited (No 3) [2000] 2 IR 514; Bula Li......
-
Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew
... ... A good example is the case of Hayman v Rowlands [1957] 1 WLR 317. In that case, the landlord sought to eject the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant did not ... ...
- Ho Shee Chit v Bruusgaard Kisteruds Skibsaksjeselskap