Trayfoot v Lock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DENNING,LORD JUSTICE PARKER |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 1957 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1957] EWCA Civ J0111-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 11 January 1957 |
[1957] EWCA Civ J0111-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Lord Justice Denning,
Lord Justice Romur and
Lord Justice Parker.
MR R.A. GATEHOUSE (instructed by Mr S.M. Gibson, Richmond, Surrey) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff)
MR D. SUMNER (instructed by Mr M.A.E. Cresswell, London, S.W.14.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant)
Mr percy Trayfoot was for over 40 years the tenant of a house, No. 125, Lower Mortlake Road, Richmond, Surrey. He died on the 20th December, 1955, at the age of 81. He was a statutory tenant at that time. The question is, who is to succeed him in that tenancy? For many years there had lived with him in the house four people: First, his own son (by his first wife), Mr William Percy Stephen Trayfoot, then aged 41. Second, his step-daughter, Mrs Lock: she was the daughter of his second wife by her first husband. She was 55 years of age. Third, her husband, Mr Lock. Fourth, an old uncle of 85.
The son and the step-daughter were both members of the tenant's family, residing with him at the date of his death: they were both qualified to succeed to the statutory tenancy: and the question between them is, Who is to take the tenancy? That is to be decided by agreement between them, if that is possible: otherwise, by the Court, Before the old man died, both the son and the step-daughter had been to the landlord's agent to see whether the landlord would take either of them on as tenant: the agent said: No, he was not going to give either of them a new contractual tenancy which might give rise to a new succession. So neither got anything during the old man's lifetime. But after his death, on the 4th January the son, Mr William Percy Stephen Trayfoot, and Mr Lock, the stepdaughter's husband, went along to the agent to enquire about the tenancy. The agent at that time had got before him a document, which had been prepared by a solicitor and signed by the old man about six months before his death, which was in these terms (addressed to the agent): "I, the undersigned Percy Trayfoot, of 125, Lower Mortlake Road, Richmond, Surrey, hereby request you to permit me to assign my tenancy of 125, Lower Mortlake Road to my son William Percy Stephen Trayfoot, who lives at this address. In the event of my death it is my wish that the tenancy should pass to him". That was dated 11th June, 1955, and signed by old Mr Trayfoot. That document showed that it was the old man's wish that the son should take over the tenancy. In addition, the old man had made a Will, properly witnessed, giving his household furniture, goods, etc., entirely to the son. At the interview on 4th January, 1956, the agent told the son and Mr Lock that he was giving the tenancy to the son as next of kin. Mr Lock did not protest. He said nothing. Thereupon the agent wrote on the top of the rent book "Mr W.P.S. Trayfoot succeeded to the statutory tenancy of the late Mr P. Trayfoot, who died on the 26th December, 1955", and handed the book over to the son. The son went back to the house and thereafter paid the rent himself to the landlord's agent. The son gave the step-daughter another rent book from himself to her and entered in it 10/- a week, charging her that amount in account for her accommodation in the house.
About three or four months later the son, wanting to marry, brought an action in the County Court for possession, seeking to turn the step-daughter out. It was referred by the Judge, by consent of the parties, to the Registrar as an Arbitrator under section 89 of the County Courts Act, 1934. The Registrar heard the evidence and gave a careful Award in which he came to the conclusion that there was no agreement between the son and step-daughter as to the tenancy. It was therefore for the Court to decide who should succeed to it. He found it a nicely balanced matter, but decided that the stepdaughter ought to have the tenancy.
The son applied to the County Court Judge to set aside that Award because (he said)it was erroneous in point of law, on two grounds. One ground was that the Registrar misdirected himself on the question whether there was an agreement or not. The other ground was that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.N.T. Bulkships Ltd and Hopkins v Interstate Constructions Pty Ltd
...v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133 Melbourne Harbour Trust Commissioners v Hancock (1927) 39 CLR 570 Williams v Wallis and Cox (1914) 2 KB 478 Trayfoot v Lock (1957) 1 WLR 351 Re Arbitration Walford, Barker and Co v Macfie and Sons (1915) 113 LTl 64550 E. Rotheray and Sons v Carlo Bedarida and C......
- Amego Litho Ltd v Scanway Ltd
-
K v S
...Richard Harding QC (instructed by Clyde & Co) for the defendant. The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Trayfoot v Lock [1957] 1 WLR 351. Williams v Wallis & Cox [1914] 2 KB 478. ZCCM Investments Holdings plc v Kansanshi Holdings plc [2019] EWHC 1285 (Comm); [2019] 1 CLC 770.......
-
K v S [2019] EWHC 2386 (Comm) Section 68, Due Process And The Exclusion Of Expert Evidence
...claim. Decision The judge held that K's reliance on authorities such as Williams v Wallis & Cox [1914] 2 KB 478 and Trayfoot v Lock [1957] 1 WLR 351 was "misplaced" and that section 68 had replaced the old law of misconduct, so that "section 68 is exhaustive as to what constitutes "seri......