Wolf v Crutchley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE PHILLIMORE,LORD JUSTICE CAIRNS |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J1023-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 23 October 1970 |
[1970] EWCA Civ J1023-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Admiral Sir Victor Alexander Crutchley and Donald William Crutchley from judgment of His Honour Judge Baxter on 19th January, 1970.
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Phillimore and
Lord Justice Cairns.
In the Matter of The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and
In the Matter of 5 Gliddon Road, London, W.14
Mr. WALTER BLUM (instructed by Messrs, Frere Cholmeley & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
Mr. I. JACOB (instructed by Messrs. Myers Ebner & Deaner) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
THE MASTER OF THE ROILS: This case concerns Nos. 5 and 6 Gliddon Road, Barons Court. In 1900 these two houses were the subject of two building leases. No. 5 Gliddon Road was let at a ground rent of £15 a year for 95 years. No. 6 wag let at £12 10s. 0d. a year for 99 years. They were at that time completely separate houses. They continued separate for many years.
In 1957 Mrs. Wolf took an assignment of the leasehold interest of No. 5 Gliddon Road. She lived there and took in lodgers. In 1962she bought the leasehold of No. 6 Gliddon Road. It was being used for paying guests. She then took steps to use the two houses together. She made an opening on the first floor of the houses from one to the other. Since that time she has used the two houses together and taken in girl students from a nearby ballet academy. She now claims to be entitled under the C Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, to buy the freehold of No. 5 Gliddon Road. Mrs. Wolf would clearly be entitled to buy the freehold of No. 5 Gliddon Road if she had not knocked the two into one. It would, if rated separately, have a rateable value of £326 well below the £400 in the Act. But the landlords reject her claim. They say that there are no longer two houses - Nos. 5 and 6. There is only one house, the combined numbers 5 and 6, The Rating Authorities have rated the two as one house at over £600, that is, far in excess of £400, and so outside the Act.
Mr. Blum, for the landlords, made three points. First, he said that the two houses were to be taken together because of Section 3(6) which says that: "Where at any time there are separate tenancies, with the same landlord and the same tenant of two or more parts of a house, or of a house or part of it and land or other premises occupied therewith" they are to be taken together for the purposes of the Act. Mr. Blum says that here there are separate tenancies of a "house" and "other premises" occupied therewith. He says that No. 5 is the "house": and that No, 6 is the "other premises occupied therewith". So they shouldbe taken together. But I think that Mr. Jacob gave the right answer. The word "premises" in section 3(6) is not used in a wide sense, such as to include another house. It is used in a narrow sense to denote a garage or out-building, or such like, ancillary to the house. That is the meaning of "premises" when used in the combined phrase "house and premises", see section 2(3). And I think the word "premises" when used in section 3(6) has the same meaning. That is shown by reference to section 15(1)(c) and (2), and by reference to the later words in section 3(6) about the "tenancy comprising the house". So I do not think section 3(6) means that numbers 5 and 6 Gliddon Road are to be taken together.
Secondly, Mr. Blum relied on the licence under which Mrs. Wolf joined up the two houses. He said that the licence made them one house. It was a licence by deed dated 1st July, 1965. By it the landlords gave permission for much more work than was in fact done. They gave permission for there to be means of access from one house to the other, both on the ground floor and on the roof. There were elaborate provisions about the use of the houses together for paying guests. There was to be one dining- room, and one television room. There was to be a manager of the whole. In short, the licence contemplated the running of the two houses combined as one guest house. Mr. Blum submitted that the licence was equivalent to a surrender of the two previous leases and a grant, of one lease for the whole. He also drew attention to the extensive work which was done at the time in the garden of No. 5. An electricity transformer chamber was installed with garages above it. And so forth.
I do not think the licence has the effect contended for by Mr. Blum. It recites expressly that "the said two leases (subject to the licence hereby granted) shall continue to subsist and bind the persons in whom they said leasehold interests created by the said two leases shall for the time being be vested". The remainder of the licence proceeds on the footing that the two leases continue separately. For instance, the lessee could underlet .each of thehouses separately without the consent of the owner. That is shown by the fact that consent was only required for an under letting during the last seven years. Again, if one house was out of repair and the other was in repair, there would be a right to forfeit the one and not the other. In these circumstances, I think that, despite the licence, there remained two separate leasehold interests in regard to Nos. 5 and 6.
Thirdly, Mr. Blum relied on the physical connection. He said that Nos. 5 and 6 was one house because a doorway was knocked through No, 5 into No. 6: and that they were used as one house. For instance, the bedrooms were numbered 1 to 20 straight through the two houses. The cleaners used this doorway to get through to do the cleaning. Some of the young ladies used the doorway at that time to pass to and from.
On this third point, we had a case last week of ( Peck v. Anicar Properties Limited 14th October, 1970) when it was said that there were three things to be considered: (1) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaidowski v Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
...arise. 17 Turning now to the two oases referred to by the learned judge. Peck -v- Anicar Properties Ltd. (1971 1 A. E. R. p. 517) and Wolf v-Crutchley (1971 1 A. E. R. p. 520), I think, contrary to the judge's view, that Peck's case helps rather than hinders Mr. Barnes. In that case, as in ......
-
Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd
...LJJ agreed) differed from the approach of Lord Denning MR in two early cases on the Act ( Peck v Anicar Properties [1971] 1 AER 517 and Wolf v Crutchley [1971] 1 WLR 99). Nourse LJ stated that the identity of the house must be determined solely by reference to s.2 of the 1967 Act, and witho......
-
Parsons v Trustees of Henry Smith's Charity
...by connecting-doors to the next door house, as in Peck v. Anicar Properties Limited. (1971) 1 A. E. R. 517: ( Wolf v. Crutchley 1971 1 W. L. R. 99: and the lease includes some part of the next-door house. The tenant is. not entitled to buy up those parts of the next-door house if the landlo......
-
Collins v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd
...of cases e.g. Gaidowski v Gonville and Caius College Cambridge [1975] 1 WLR 1066, Malpas v St Ermin's Property Ltd [1992] 1 EGLR 109, Wolf v Crutchley [1971] 1 WLR 99 and Duke of Westminster v Birrane [1995] QB 26. Those cases have to be treated with caution having regard to the speeches ......