Sleafer v Lambeth Borough Council, C.A.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ORMEROD,LORD JUSTICE WILLMER |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1959 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1959] EWCA Civ J0702-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 02 July 1959 |
[1959] EWCA Civ J0702-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justic Morries
Lord Justice Ormerod
Lord Justice Willmer
MR.F.W. BENEY, Q.C. and MR. DOUGLAS LOWE (instructed by Messrs Maroan & Dean) appeared for the Appellant, Plaintiff below.
MR. STEPHEN CHAPMAN, Q.C. MR. PETER RAWLINSON Q.C., MR. G. WILLIAMS (instructed by Messrs Pennington & Son) appeared on behalf the Respondents, Plaintiffs below.
LORD JUSTICE MORRIES: On the 30th November, 1955, Mr. Sleafer, who was the tenant of the flat belonging to the Lambeth Metropolitan Borough Council, had the misfortune to meet with rather an unusual accident which resulted in physical injury. He brought an action, by a writ dated 26th July, 1957, claiming damages against his landlords. The case came before Mr. Justice Glyn -Jones, who dismissed the claim. The Plaintiff now appeals to this court.
Mr. Sleafer became tenant of the flat which he occupied, in December, 1952. The flat was on the first floor of a block of flats which had then recently been erected for the Borough of Lambeth. There was an agreement in these terms: "The Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth, action by their Director of Housing, hereby agree to let, and I Albert Edward Sleafer do hereby agree to take on a weekly tenancy, from Monday, the first day of December 1952 Tenement No. 5 Martin House on the Wyvil Estte in the Metropolitn Borough of Lambeth, at a rent of "- I need not read the rent - "or such lesser sum as may be payable from time to time under or by virtue of the Council's rebate scheme which is incorporated in the agreement, payable weekly I advance, and subject to the conditions for Tenancy printed overleaf. The above rental includes 7s.4d. per wk Hot water Service Charge." That was dated 28th November 1952. It was singed by Mr. Sleafer. The Documents continues: "Tenants must read and shall be deemed to have read the Conditions of Tenancy."
I may say that we asked whether there was anything contained in the rent rebate scheme that threw any light on the matter before us that scheme being incorporated in the contract: we were told that there was noting in that scheme which is relevant for present purposes.
The general conditions of the contract of tenancy are numerous. It is not necessary to refer to all the them. Condition 2 reads: "The tenant is required to reside in the dwelling which is to be useds private dwelling only. The tenant shall not use the dwelling as a shop or workshop or expose any goods or materials for sale, exchange or hire therein. No permanent notices may exhibited on the premises." Condition 5: "The Tenant shall repay to the Council the cost of repairing any damage done to the dwelling or to the fixtures or fittings. The tenant shall not make any alternations to the internal arrangements or external appearance of the dwelling. The tenant must pay the cost of the replacing any windows broken during his tenancy, and the cost of replacing keys lost." There are other provisions in the Clause 5 which I do not think I need read. Clause 7: The tenant shall give immediate notice to the Director of Housing or his representative of any stoppage in the soil, waste or drain pipes. The placing in W.C. of rags, cotton, bottle or any thing likely to choke the drain is strictly prohibited. Any expense caused by infringement of the this regulation will be charged against the tenant." Clause 9: "The tenant shall not do or allow to be done any decorative or other work to any part of the dwelling without cones in writing. Nail on no account are to be drive into the walls, floors, or any part of the dwelling." Claus 11: "The Council shall be at liberty on production of a written authority under the hand of the Town Clerk or other authorized Officer by its Agents or workmen to enter the dwelling to inspect the state of repair and to execute repairs therein, or for ay other purpose, at all reasonable hours of the day". Clause 15: The tenant shall deliver up the dwelling at the end of the tenancy together with all landlords' fixtures in good and tenantable repair and condition (subject to fair wear and tear) and with all locks, keys and fastenings complete."
It may be said, I think with justification, that the conditions as draw do not very clearly explain to any one reading them how the matter of doing repairs stands between landlord and tenant. The evidence before the learned judge showed that, in practice, the repairs were done by the landlords. Mr. Marrin, a rent collect employed by the Defendants, was asked (page 38): "Supposing the tenant made a complaint of something being in disrepair, was it your business to make a note of that? (A) Yes, (Q) Was it the practice of the Council to do all repairs that were thought to be necessary? (A) Within certain limits." He went on to explain ht in the case of such items as broken windows there would be a special position
Mr. Sleafer went into occupation and remained in the occupation. In the early party of 1959 he had occasion to do some decorative work himself, namely decoration of the external door and casement frames. Miss Williams, the Housing Superintendent, noticed that the work had been done and informed her superior in these terms: "Mr. Slefer, the tenant of this flat, had decorated the external door and casement framed. This has been done to match existing colours, ad quite nicely. If you consider that no further action should be taken, perhaps you will write an appropriate letter to forestall any more fancy ides." The Director of the Housing thought it was proper to write to Mr. Sleafer on the 19th February in these terms: "My attention has been drawn to the fact that you have painted the external woodwork of the above flat. I must draw your attention to the conditions of agreement, in which it states that tenants must not carry out decorations. If you require to carry out further decoration, it will be necessary for your to apply for permission. You will appreciate that this is necessary in order to maintain a good standard of decorations on the estate."
When the Plaintiff painted his front door, it was necessary for him to remove what is called the postal plate. That is a fitting affixed to the outside of the door having on part that can be pushed inwards to admit of the passage of letters so that they may be delivered to the flat. On the outside there is a knockers in the form of handle, Photographs of the door were before the learned judge and have been before us, and it does seem that the reasonable and appropriate method of puling the front door to when outside would be take hold of the knocker and to use to close the door. That postal plate is affixed on the outside of the door by two bolts which go through the door, and it would be possible, if anyone did not adjust the postal plate properly, to lave it so that the handle was not securely held in the rings or the lugs which are on the outside. A suggestion was put to the Plaintiff that he had not replaced the postal plate effectively but the learned judge said in his judgment that the Plaintiff had stated that the postal plate was not in fact loose.
What disturbed the Plaintiff was that his front door use to jam so that it became very difficult to close. It caught at the bottom part and it caught against the upright. It was said that the door was defective because it had dropped a little so as to cause it to bind upon the threshold or the weather plate fixed inside the threshold. The Plaintiff said that he complained about this matter. He said that on one occasion, when a representative of the landlords' came to deal with a lock, he complained to that representative, who took hammer and dealt with the ether plate. There after the door was somewhat better, but apparently the trouble recurred: the door jammed not only against the weather but against the upright part. The Plaintiff's wife said that a further complaint was made to the landlords. It was said there was a complaint made to somebody who called for the rent and that there was a complaint made at the rent collecting office. The landlords said that no complaint was made.
On the 30th November, 1955, Mr. Sleafer was I his flat in the evening and he had a visitor with him. They left the flat at about half -past 9. Mr. Sleafer tried to close the front door but it jammed and he had to pull it quite hard two or three times. It still did not close and he pulled somewhat harder, and, when he did that, most unfortunately, the handle or knocker came away in his hand: it came away because one of the rings which held it broke. Although there was a suggestion at one stage of the case that the knocker itself was cracked, it does appear now that the knocker or handle came away because of ring broke: the ring broke because more than usual force had to be applied.
That would not be seen to be a serious mishap, but, most unfortunately, because the Plaintiff was pulling hard and because the knocker cam away in his hand, he was caused to go backwards. The result was that he fell rather heavily against an iron balustrade that was opposite his front door on the first floor of the premises. He suffered injuries, though they were not very apparent at first. Later on, the rent collector, when he called, noticed that the knocker of the door was missing. There was evidence that Mrs. Sleafer was asked for an explanation and said that possibly a postman or possibly some reveler had pulled the knocker off. Mrs. Sleafer denied having said this.
Later on, a letter of complaint was written on behalf of Mr. Sleafer. It was dated the 20th April, 1956, and was addressed to the Housing Manger: "I have been consulted by Mr. Albert Slefer, in connection with the accident he suffered in November 1955. I understand that he is the tenant of 5 Martin House,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mok Tai Dwan v Kelang Pembena Kereta-Kereta Sdn Bhd
-
Barrett v Lounova (1982) Ltd
...repairing covenant is a permissible approach if the terms of the agreement and circumstances justify it. 31 The first is Sleafer v. Lambeth Borough Council, (1961) Queen's Bench 43. That was an extraordinary case, in which the tenant found that he was unable to open his front door due to a ......
-
Gavin and Another (Claimants/Appellants) v Community Housing Association Ltd (Now one Housing Group Ltd)
...under clause 9(b)(iv) to permit the lessor to view the property and to effect work necessary for upholding the building (see Sleafer v Lambeth Borough Council [1960] 1 QB 43) and the same principle must apply also to the covenant by the lessee in clause 9(b)(ix) to co-operate with the lesso......
-
Westminster (Duke of) v Guild
...occasions special facts may no doubt justify a departure from the general rule. However the decision of the court of appeal in Sleafer v. Lambeth Borough Council, (1960) 1 Queen's Bench 43, well illustrates that, though the provisions of a lease may indicate the parties' contemplation that......