Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reed,Lord Wilson,Lord Carnwath,Lady Hale,Lord Toulson |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] UKSC 57 |
| Date | 05 November 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
[2014] UKSC 57
Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Wilson
Lord Reed
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Appellant
Martin Westgate QC Lindsay Johnson
(Instructed by Shelter Eastern Counties)
Respondent
Richard Wilson QC Stephen Goodfellow
(Instructed by Asher Prior Bates)
Heard on 1 May 2014
The appeal raises troublesome issues of construction of para 4 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act"). By section 1, the 1983 Act applies to any agreement under which a person ("the occupier") is entitled to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site and to occupy it as his only or main residence; and, by section 2, the terms set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to it shall, notwithstanding any express term to the contrary, be implied in any such agreement between the site owner and the occupier. Thus, by paragraph 1 of Chapter 2 of Part 1, a term is, subject to an irrelevant exception, implied that the occupier's right to station his mobile home on the site shall subsist until the agreement is determined under one of four subsequent paragraphs. Of the three (now numbered 4, 5 and 5A) which relate to determination by the site owner, the relevant paragraph is 4 ("the para 4 term") which provides that:
"The owner shall be entitled to terminate the agreement forthwith if, on the application of the owner, the appropriate judicial body –
(a) is satisfied that the occupier has breached a term of the agreement and, after service of a notice to remedy the breach, has not complied with the notice within a reasonable time; and
(b) considers it reasonable for the agreement to be terminated."
In the present case the occupier's breach was an act of anti-social behaviour. It raises the following issues:
-
(i) Can an occupier 'remedy' a breach of a covenant against anti-social behaviour?
-
(ii) If not, what is the effect of the para 4 term?
-
(iii) Alternatively, if so,
-
(a) how may he 'comply' with a notice to remedy and
-
(b) what is the effect of his obligation to do so 'within a reasonable time'?
-
Mr Telchadder, who is an occupier of a mobile home, appeals against an order of the Court of Appeal (Mummery LJ, Black LJ and Dame Janet Smith) dated 16 May 2012, [2012] EWCA Civ 635, by which it dismissed an appeal against an order made by HHJ Moloney QC in the Southend County Court on 17 August 2011. In proceedings brought by Wickland (Holdings) Ltd ("Wickland"), which owns and operates a site for mobile homes at Meadowview Park, Little Clacton, Essex, Judge Moloney held that, pursuant to the para 4 term, Wickland was entitled to terminate its agreement with Mr Telchadder dated 1 June 2006 and he proceeded to order that his licence to station his mobile home at Plot No.160 at the park be terminated forthwith. Pending determination of this appeal and, were it to fail, of a potential application to suspend execution of the judge's order under section 4 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ("the 1968 Act"), Mr Telchadder continues to station his mobile home at Plot No. 160 and to occupy it there.
The site at Meadowview Park is protected within the meaning of sections 5(1) of the 1983 Act and 1(2) of the 1968 Act. It is not a site for holiday caravans: the mobile homes are for occupation throughout the year and are fixed to the ground and, notwithstanding their description, they are not easily removed. There are about 200 homes on the site. The close proximity in which they are set places a premium on good-neighbourliness. About 30% of the occupiers are aged at least 70 and children aged under 16 are not permitted permanently to reside there. Wickland does not own the homes and it appears that the occupiers themselves almost always own them. Occupiers who merely rent the homes from third parties may well not be protected under the 1983 Act: see Clayden, The Law of Mobile Homes and Caravans, 2 nd ed (2003), p 87.
On 1 June 2006 Mr Telchadder entered into a written agreement with Wickland for the right to station a mobile home, which he owns, on the park, at Plot No.160, on payment of a pitch fee of £1516 p.a. subject to annual review. The terms which the 1983 Act required to be implied into the agreement, therefore including the para 4 term, were all set out expressly in accordance with section 1(2)(d) of that Act. Mr Telchadder also expressly undertook not to act in such a way as to annoy or disturb other occupiers of the park. Furthermore he undertook to comply with the Park Rules, which were annexed to the agreement. By way of preface to the rules, Wickland stated that their object was not to place unnecessary restrictions on residents but to ensure that they might live peacefully in unspoilt surroundings and it explained that some of them were necessary because residents lived in closer proximity than house-dwellers. One rule forbade residents to carry offensive weapons or any other objects likely to give offence while on the park. Another rule repeated the prohibition against acts of annoyance to other residents.
Judge Moloney found that Mr Telchadder, who is middle-aged, was somewhat eccentric and suffered certain mental problems, had a mild learning disability and exhibited autistic traits.
On 31 July 2006 Miss Puncher, a female resident of the park, complained to Wickland that a man in camouflage clothing, with camouflage netting over his head, had startled her by jumping out at her from behind a tree on the park and by waving at her. The man was Mr Telchadder. Although Wickland did not plead this incident in its Particulars of Claim, the judge held that he thereby "breached a term of the agreement" for the purposes of the para 4 term, in that he broke his undertaking not to act so as to annoy or disturb other occupiers of the park; and the successive appeals have proceeded on that basis.
By letter dated 15 August 2006 to Mr Telchadder, Wickland wrote:
"… there is the … extremely serious matter of your behaviour in that you are dressing in what appears to be military combat clothing and obscuring your face with a mask while outside your home in the Park area.
You are also making unwanted approaches to some Residents while dressed in this manner causing alarm and distress.
Your apparel in itself is not a great problem but not really desirable or in keeping with Meadowview Park, it is your actions which are not acceptable in that:
A. ON NO ACCOUNT MUST YOU MASK OR OBSCURE YOUR FACE WHEN YOU ARE IN ANY AREA OF THE PARK OUTSIDE YOUR HOME
B. ON NO ACCOUNT MUST YOU MAKE UNSOLICITED APPROACHES OR ADVANCES TO OTHER RESIDENTS ON MEADOWVIEW PARK
Should you ignore either A or B above you will leave us no alternative but to apply to Colchester Court to have your Agreement terminated and your home removed from Meadowview Park."
Judge Moloney held that the letter dated 15 August 2006 amounted to "a notice to remedy the breach" which had occurred on 31 July 2006 for the purposes of the para 4 term. The Court of Appeal agreed with him; and the current appeal proceeds on that basis.
The central fact in this appeal is that Mr Telchadder committed no further breach of the agreement until 15 July 2009, almost three years after the notice dated 15 August 2006. It is true that in June 2007 and April 2008 Wickland had written further letters to Mr Telchadder, prompted by further complaints by residents of a relatively minor character, but the judge attached no significance to them.
On 15 July 2009 Mr Telchadder (so the judge found) told Mr Carter, a resident of the park, that two women had reported him for jumping out on them in the woods and that he, Mr Telchadder, was going to kill them. When Mr Carter told him to calm down, he said "I'll fucking kill you as well – I've got shotguns and air rifles". Mr Carter called the police and Mr Telchadder left. But he soon returned, swinging a stick and repeating that he was going to kill him. The judge found, however, that Mr Telchadder never intended to implement his threats to kill the women or Mr Carter and that the threats were stupid and ill-advised.
By letter dated 12 August 2009 Wickland informed Mr Telchadder that, because he had been harassing, threatening and terrorising other residents, it proposed to apply to court for termination of his agreement. On 8 September 2009 it issued its claim for possession of Plot No.160. But the hearing of the claim did not begin until 15 August 2011 and, in the intervening period of almost two years, Mr Telchadder, so the judge found, perpetrated other acts to which the judge had regard in considering, for the purpose of sub para (b) of the para 4 term, whether it was "reasonable for the agreement to be terminated".
The other acts were as follows:
-
(i) In October 2009 an anonymous note was delivered to Mr Carter's home. Mr Carter decorates his home with two Samurai swords. The note asked Mr Carter to leave one of the swords outside for the writer to collect. Later Mr Carter saw Mr Telchadder lurking outside his house. Mr Telchadder (so the judge found) had written the note.
-
(ii) In February 2010 Mr Telchadder harassed and intimidated two elderly residents, one of whom was also disabled, as a result of which, on his plea of guilty, the local magistrates made an order restraining him from contacting them again.
-
(iii) In July 2010 Mr Telchadder behaved in a threatening manner to a member of the family which owns and operates Wickland.
-
(iv) In March 2011 Mr Telchadder left empty shotgun cartridges outside Mr Carter's home.
-
(v) In April 2011 Mr Telchadder approached two elderly residents, who asked him to go away and threatened to call the police. At their request another resident joined them. Later Mr Telchadder...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr Rohit Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Ltd
...going further, it is useful to examine them and, in addition, the decision of the Supreme Court in Wickland (Holdings) Ltd Telechadder [2014] 1 WLR 4004. 85 In Schuler v Wickman the agreement permitted either party to serve notice to terminate it in the event of a material breach of the ag......
-
Gareth Gerald McConomy and Another v Ase Plc and Another
...is capable of remedy I was referred by Mr Maynard-Connor to the decision of the Supreme Court in Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd [2014] UKSC 57, [2014] 1 WLR 4004 23–3248. Ordinarily the breach of a positive contractual obligation is capable of remedy, but even a breach of a negative cov......
-
Decision Nº LRX 139 2014. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 21-05-2015
...referred to in this decision: Shaw’s Trailer Park (Harrogate) v Nichol-Hughes [2014] UKUT 0181 (LC)) Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd [2014] UKSC 57 United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904 Introduction This appeal raises two important issues about the review of ......
-
Decision Nº LRX 47 2015. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 16-12-2015
...Union Pension Trustees Ltd v Slavin [2015] UKUT 103(LC) Stroud v Weir Associates Ltd [1987] EGLR 190 Telchadder v Wickland (Holdings) Ltd [2014] UKSC 57 DECISION Introduction This is an appeal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) (“the F-tT”) ......