Muir Group Housing Association Ltd v Thornley and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 October 1992 |
| Date | 08 October 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Glidewell, Lord Justice Mann and Lord Justice Leggatt
Housing - secure tenancy - loss of status - right to buy forfeited
The loss by a secure tenant of his status entitled a landlord to refuse to convey an estate in a dwelling-house even though all matters relating to the grant had been agreed between the parties.
The Court of Appeal so held in giving its reserved reasons for allowing on September 22 an appeal brought by the plaintiff, Muir Group Housing Association Ltd, against the decision of Judge Blackburn on January 14, 1992 at Stockport County Court (i) to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for possession of 23 Parrymead, Woodley, Stockport and (ii) on the counterclaim of the defendants, Wilbraham George Thornley and Anita May Thornley, to order the plaintiff to grant them an estate in fee simple absolute.
Mr John Martin, QC, for the plaintiff; Mr Jeffrey Terry for the defendants.
LORD JUSTICE MANN said that in June 1980 the plaintiff granted the defendants a monthly tenancy of 23 Parrymead which was a secure tenancy. In May 1989 the defendants served a written notice claiming to exercise the right to buy the freehold. The plaintiff served a notice admitting the defendants' right to buy.
By July 9, 1990 all matters relating to the grant of the freehold had been agreed and completion was to take place on August 31.
However, towards the end of July the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had moved out of the house on taking up a three-year resident warden appointment and had also sub-let the whole of the house on an assured shorthold tenancy.
The sub-letting was a breach of a condition of the 1980 tenancy agreement and it had the independent statutory effect of the tenancy ceasing to be a secure tenancy and the defendants ceasing to be secure tenants: section 93(2) of the Housing Act 1985.
The plaintiff informed the defendants that because of the sub-letting the sale would not proceed and on November 27 sent them a notice to quit which expired on December 31. The house was not vacated and proceedings for possession were commenced.
The defence was that the plaintiff was under a statutory duty to grant the defendants a fee simple absolute in the house.
Judge Blackburn found that the defendants had not fully realised that sub-letting was a breach of the tenancy agreement or might affect the exercise of their right to buy and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knowsley Housing Trust v White ; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association
...the right to buy, until completion is effected (see eg Enfield London Borough Council v McKeon [1986] 1 WLR 1007, Muir Group Housing Association Ltd v Thornley (1992) 91 LGR 1, and Harrow London Borough Council v Tonge (1992) 25 HLR 99). That proposition was referred to in this House with a......
-
Bristol City Council v Lovell
...before us and is well supported by such cases as Enfield London Borough Council v. McKeon [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1007 and Muir Group Housing Association Ltd. v. Thornley (1992) 25 H.L.R. 89. The stage of affairs with which Section 138 is concerned thus occurs while the period of the exercise of th......
-
London Borough of Haringey v Hines
...to buy it ( London Borough of Sutton v. Swann (1985) 18 HLR 140, at 144, 145; Muir Group Housing Association Ltd v. Thornley & Thornley (1993) 25 HLR 89). He nevertheless rejected Haringey's case that the grant of the lease was ultra vires and void. He also rejected its case that it was ent......
-
Islington London Borough Council v Honeygan-Green
...and two children to move into his council flat. This decision was followed in the Muir Group Housing Association Limited v Thornley [1992] 25 HLR 89 where the policy underlying the legislation was also considered. Lord Justice Glidewell said at 98:— “If, however, I had any doubt about the m......