Joan Wiles (Married Woman) v Kathleen Lily Croucher (Married Woman) and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1220-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 20 December 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1220-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: His Honour Judge Pennant -
Bournemouth County Court)
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Russell
The Appellant Mrs. D. SNOW appeared in person on behalf of the Third Defendants.
Mr. T.W. PRESTON (instructed by Messrs. Lemon & Co., Swindon) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
This is I think an unfortunate appeal and it has one or two unsatisfactory aspects. It is an unfortunate case for the appellants, who are a Mr. and Mrs. Snow, speaking through Mrs. Snow as their advocate, complaining of an order for possession which has been made against them in the Bournemouth County Court by His Honour Judge Pennant. It seems that on the 18th July, 1959, Mrs. Wiles, the plaintiff, leased some premise: in Bournemouth to a Mrs. Croucher: it was a house with outbuildings, garden and garage at 31 Talbot Hill Road, Bournemouth and the lease gave her the premises for seven years. There was a provision that the tenant, Mrs. Croucher, was not to part with possession or assign or underlet or otherwise alienate any part or parts of the demised premises without the landlord's previous written consent.
Mrs. Croucher had some of her family in America and as time went on she wanted to go over to see them, leaving her house for the time being. She wanted someone to look after it – it was a furnished house – and it seems that in October of 1964 she arranged with Mr. and Mrs. Snow that they should have a furnished tenancy of the premises. There was no written document but the understanding seems to have been – perhaps expressly – that they were to have two years there certain and to continue on a monthly tenancy thereafter. This was done apparently without any formal consent and probably without the knowledge of Mrs. Wiles for a very long time. But the bargain satisfied Mrs. Croucher quite well. She was paying some £50 a quarter for her rent and she was getting £34 a month from Mr. and Mrs. Snow for the furnished premises.
Then there came a time when the landlord, Mrs. Wiles, found out about this occupation, and she objected to it. As her permission had not been asked, it was in breach of covenant. The situation came when the landlord gave Mrs. Croucher notice to go out. No question arises on that because the lease expired on the 18th July, 1966, and Mrs. Croucher, accepting theposition as it was, did not contest that possession must be given up by her at that time. She claimed no right to stay on and could have claimed no right for the Snows to stay on either.
Apparently (as the judge has found) there was a period in July, 1966, when the subletting by Mrs. Croucher - if such it can be called: the letting was indeed of furnished and not unfurnished premises – or the occupation of the house, amounted to an assignment of the lease by Mrs. Croucher to the Snows for the remainder of the term. But the proceedings for possession were taken before that time had expired and when the matter came before the County Court judge Mrs. Croucher's interest had...
To continue reading
Request your trial