MacDonnell v Daly
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE MEGAW |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J0620-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 June 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Civ J0620-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of Her Honour Deputy Judge Deborah Rowland at West London Country Court on the 18th October, 1968.
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Edmund Davies and
Lord Justice Megaw.
Mr. S. IBBOTSON (instructed by Messrs. Bircham & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff Appellant.
Mr. N. PRIMOST (instructed by Messrs. Loxdales) appeared on behalf of the Defendant Respondent.
Mr. MacDonnell is a stockbroker's clerk. In August of 1966, he bought a house, No. 15 Kempson Road, S.W. 6. It is a 6-roomed house. Three of the rooms were occupied by an artist, Mr. Daly. He had been there for 20 years. He was paying a rent of £2 18s. Od. a week. Mr. Daly was a bachelor. The three rooms were filled with all his artist's things: his easels, points, frames and so forth. He had no kitchen. Only a gas ring in one room. He had some rugs in another on which he slept. He made his living by teaching at a school of art and by doing some painting on commission and for sale.
The landlord, Mr. MacDonnell, had a wife and two small children. He asked Mr. Daly to give up one of his rooms. He wanted the room on the first floor which Mr. Daly used a great deal for his work as an artist. But Mr. Daly was a controlled tenant. He was protected by section 9(1) of the Rent Act, 1968, which says that "the fact that part of the premises comprised in a dwelling-house is used as a shop or office or other business, trade or professional purposes shall not prevent the dwelling-house from being let on or subject to a controlled tenancy." So he was protected for all of his three rooms, even though one was used for professional purposes.
In order to obtain possession, the landlord, Mr. MacDonnell, sought to satisfy section 10(1)(4) of the Act by offering to Mr. Daly suitable alternative accommodation. He offered two of the very three rooms which Mr. Daly was occupying. He said those two rooms alone were sufficient accommodation for Mr. Daly. The landlord admitted that they were not sufficient for Mr. Daly's professional work, but he said those two rooms were sufficient for him, a bachelor, to live in. He offered to reduce the rent for the three rooms to £2 8s. Od. for two rooms from £2 18s. Od. On making that offer, he claimed possession of the one room.
Section 10 says: "A Court shall not make an Order for possession of a dwelling-house which is for the time being let on a protected tenancy or subject to a statutory tenancy, unless the Court considers it reasonable to make such order and the Court is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant". In order to determine whether "suitable alternative accommodation" is available, we have to look at the Third Schedule, Part IV, which includes this condition in Article 3(1) (b): "….that the accommodation is reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work and reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent and character".
The first question is whether these two rooms out of three can be suitable alternative accommodation. Mr. Ibbotson submitted to us that alternative accommodation may consist of part only of the premises which are let to the tenant. For that proposition he cited the case of Thompson v. Rolls (1926 2 K.B. 426) and Parmel v. Mitchell (1950 2 K.B. 199). But those cases are quite distinguishable. In each case the tenant occupied only part of the house and sub-let the rest. He was offered the whole of the part which he himself occupied. That was held to be suitable alternative accommodation. But those cases do not extend to the present. The landlord here does not offer Mr. Daly all the three rooms which he occupies. He offers him only two of them. That is not good enough. Mr. Daly is protected in respect of all these three rooms. He cannot be deprived of that protection by being offered only two of them. Mr. Ibbotson also urged that the alternative accommodation, in order to be suitable, need only provide for the tenant's dwelling purposes and need not provide for his professional work. Therefore, it need not provide a studio for Mr. Daly. He relied on Wilcock v. Booth (1920 89 Law Journal K.B.D. 864); and Middlesex County Council v. Hall (1929 2 K.B. 110);and the case of Briddon v. George (1946 1 A.E.R. 609); and one or two cases in Scotland. But those cases were in the Divisional Court and cannot survive the subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal in McIntyre v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v Rochard
...is not suitable to the needs of the tenant. 16 In support of that submission Mr Gordon relied on two decisions of this court, the first MacDonnell v. Daly (1969) 1 W.L.R. 1482. That was a case in which the alternative accommodation offered was two of three rooms which had previously been oc......
-
Mykolyshyn v Noah
...Mr. Baker contended before us that the position has now been changed by reason of a decision of this Court last year in the case of MacDonnell v. Daly, reported in 1969 1 Weekly Law Reports at page 1482. In that case the plaintiff, who owned a house, had astenant of three rooms an artist, w......
-
Jones and Another v Cook and Another
...conclusion was that the certificate was not one which complied with the Schedule. Such a view was supported by McDonnell v DalyWLR ((1969) 1 WLR 1482). That case had been decided before the 1977 Act came into force, but the statutory provisions were similar. It was not possible for the cour......
-
J. Viveash Ltd (Appellants) E. D. Feilen (Respondent)
...premises offered were not suitable for this tenant in character?" The only authority which is in point in this case is McDonald v. Daly (1969) 1WLR, 1482, a decision of this court. This was also a case concerning an artist. The facts are not on all fours by any means with the present case, ......