Thompson v Thompson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY,LORD JUSTICE ORMROD |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0131-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 31 January 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0131-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Buckley
Lord Justice Ormrod and
Sir John Pennycuick
MR A. McCowan, Q.C. and MR G. WILLIAMS, (instructed by Messrs. Moorland & Sons of Abingdon) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Wife)
THE RESPONDENT (Husband) appeared in person.
This is an appeal from the decision of His Honor Judge Glover at Oxford on the 5th November, 1974, when he dismissed the appellant's application for a transfer to her of the tenancy of the matrimonial home. I will refer, for the sake of simplicity, to the appellant as "the wife", and to the respondent as "the husband", although the marriage has in fact been dissolved, a decree absolute having been granted on the 21st November, 1975.
The matrimonial home from 1948 until the break-up of the marriage was a house, 44, The Avenue, Kennington, near to Oxford. That is a council house. At the time when the parties first resided there the tenants of the house were the wife's parents, but at a later stage her parents got themselves other accommodation - they bought a house at 39, The Avenue - and the tenancy was then transferred into the sole name of the respondent, this to say, the husband. There were four children of the marriage, but we are only concerned with one of them, the youngest, born on the 17th June, 1963. He is a boy, and he is now upwards of eleven years of age. The three older children are all of age and self-supporting, so we are not concerned with them.
The marriage ran into some difficulties in or about the year 196O, when the husband for a time left the matrimonial home. Proceedings were taken by the wife in the magistrates' court, when she obtained an order against the husband on though basis that he had deserted her. But at sons time during the year 1963 there was a reconciliation, and the parties began to live together again at 44, The Avenue. In June, 1973, the wife left the matrimonial home, talking Bruce, the youngest child, with her, and moved to her parents' house at "39, The Avenue, which, as the address indicates, is in close proximity to No. 44, The Avenue.
On the 14th June the wife presented a petition for divorce under Section 1 (2) (b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 alleging that the husband had conducted himself in a way which made it impossible for her to continue to live with him, particularly on account of his violent conduct. Those proceedings were undefended. The decree nisi was granted on the 9th October, 1975, and, as I have already said, it was made absolute on the 21st November, 1973. Then application was made to the court for ancillary relief. On the 12th February, 1974, by the consent of the husband, a custody order in respect of Bruce was made in favor of the wife. On the 8th March, 1974, an order for periodical payments was made under which the husband pays £5 a week for the wife and £2.50 a week in respect of Bruce.
The husband has continued to live in the matrimonial home, which is a three-bedroom house, with two sitting rooms and the usual attendant offices. The wife's parents' house at No. 39, The Avenue, although not identical in plan to the matrimonial home, contains somewhat equivalent accommodation. It has two sitting rooms on the ground floor and a kitchen, and upstairs two bedrooms and a small room about "76" by 66n which has been converted into an upstairs kitchen, with a cooker, a sink and kitchen furniture in it. In its present condition it is unsuitable for use, and incapable of being used, as a bedroom. But if it were cleared of the fittings it could presumably be used as a small bedroom. The wife's parents sleep in one of the bedrooms upstairs, and the wife and Bruce sleep in the other room, she in a single bed and he on a divan. The husband is living alone in the matrimonial hone, occupying one bedroom. So that two bedrooms are vacant in. that house, and he has a Ginning room and a sitting room downstairs.
The wife applied for an order for the transfer of the tenancy of the matrimonial home. That application 'was dismissed by the registrar on the 15th February, 1974. The judge later entertained an appeal from that order, but, as will emerge, he did not see fit to order a transfer of the tenancy.
Before I come to deal with the judgment of the learned judge, I ought to refer to certain letters which passed between the wife's solicitors and the housing department of the relevant local authority. In the earlier stages the local authority concerned with this part of the country was the bingo Rural District Council. On the 30th November, 1973, the housing manager of that council wrote to the wife's solicitors in response to an enquiry from her to say that in the event of a court order being made against the husband the council would raise no objection to the tenancy being transferred to the wife.
Then in April, 1374, the reorganization of local authority boundaries took effect, and the council responsible for the area became The Vale of white Horse District Council. On the 11th April, 1974, the housing officer of that authority wrote to the wife's solicitors saying that the council was not prepared to take proceedings against the husband for possession of 44, The Avenue, but that if he could be persuaded to relinquish the tenancy in the wife's favor they would then grant her the tenancy. The letter goes on to say: "Alternatively if the Court orders that the tenancy be transferred to Mrs. Thompson under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 or the patrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, we will then of course grant her the tenancy."
Later, in July, 1974, in response to a further enquiry, the housing officer wrote a letter in these terms: "Although it usedalways to be the policy to grant a tenancy to the husband, it is the policy of The Vale of white Horse District Council to make all tenancies joint between husband and wife. It is also their policy to consider all tenancies that have been granted to the husband in the past as now being joint tenancies and, although tenants were not informed of this, we consider that Mr. and Mrs. Thompson have equal rights to the house. If Mrs. Thompson is forced to leave the house she can put her name on the housing waiting list hut it is not possible to indicate how long it might be before we could offer her alternative accommodation. The Council operates a point's scheme and, although length of time on the waiting list is taken into account, particular circumstances of the applicant are the main consideration. There is of course a long waiting list and we would not be able to help Mrs. Thompson very quickly."
The husband is a fork lift driver. His take-home pay, after providing for the maintenance payments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Jones
...a tenancy that was particularly suited for his disability. LORD JUSTICE MORRITT, agreeing, said that the dicta in Thompson v ThompsonELR([1976] Fam 25) were now plainly out of date in the light of changes made by the Housing Act 1980 to the relationship between a council and its tenant. Tho......
-
Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen
...the language of the section is clear beyond argument. Mr. Arden's submissions were in substance advanced to the Court of Appeal in Thompson v. Thompson [1976] Fam. 25 and in Hale v. Hale [1975] 1 W.L.R. 931. These cases have since been followed in more than one which has been reported and n......
-
Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen
...Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, thereby relieving the other party of further contractual liability to the landlord; see Thompson v. Thompson [1976] Fam. 25. There must be many cases where such a tenancy is the most valuable asset, perhaps the only asset, available to the parties. It is natural......
-
K. v K. (Minors: Property Transfer)
...the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. A joint tenancy was "property" for the purposes of s 11B(2)(d) of the 1971 Act: see Thompson v Thompson [1976] Fam 25. Further, the "benefit" referred to in s 11B(2)(d) of the 1971 Act was not confined to financial benefit, nor was that provision limited to ......