R (Raymond) v Ealing London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LATHAM,Lord Justice Neuberger,LORD JUSTICE NEUBERGER |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWCA Civ 1480 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C1/2005/0781 |
| Date | 16 November 2005 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1480
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE BEAN)
Lord Justice Latham
Lord Justice Neuberger
C1/2005/0781
MR NYARUMBA NOTA (instructed by Law for All Solicitors, Brentford TW8 9FL) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MISS EMMA GODFREY (instructed by London Borough of Ealing, Legal Services Department, Perceval House (4SE), 14–14 Uxbridge Road, London W5 2HL) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
I will ask Lord Justice Neuberger to give the first judgment.
This is an application for permission to appeal a decision of Bean J given in the Administrative Court on 18th March 2005. He refused a renewed application for permission to seek judicial review brought by Mr Martin Raymond, and refused permission to appeal. Mr Nyarumba Nota, on behalf of Mr Raymond, now seeks permission to appeal.
The facts are simple. Mr Raymond was a tenant, together with a Ms Clarke, of 13 Rutherford Tower, Southall, their landlord being Ealing Borough Council ("the council"). On 30th June 2003 Mr Raymond served an application on the council seeking to exercise his statutory right to buy a long leasehold interest of the flat. The council responded admitting that he had the right to buy.
Thereafter, on 17th October 2003 Ms Clarke served a notice to quit on the council which determined the secure tenancy on 17th November 2003. Shortly before the expiry of the notice to quit, the council had actually made a formal offer of sale of the flat to Mr Raymond, who accepted it on 19th December. The effect of the notice to quit was said, however, by the council to put an end not merely to the tenancy, but to Mr Raymond's statutory right to buy. In those circumstances, they refused to take the sale further and proceeded against Mr Raymond for possession.
The council's position so far as the right to buy was concerned appears, on the face of it at least, to be unassailable. Following three earlier decisions of this court, London Borough of Sutton v Swann, Jennings v Epping Forest District Council and Bradford City Metropolitan Council v McMahon, this court said in Bater and Bater v London Borough of Greenwich [1999] 2 FLR 993 that:
"It is now established beyond a peradventure that a right to buy is dependant on the existence of a secure tenancy to which it is incidental."
I should add that it is quite clear from those authorities that the secure tenancy must survive throughout the period during which the right to buy is sought to be exercised.
In those circumstances, it follows, subject to any new arguments that can be raised on his behalf, that Mr Raymond lost the right to buy, and indeed became prone to a claim for possession with effect from 17th November 2002.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial