A post-Pinnock question

By J on 07/11/2010. 12 Comments

In the early part of this year, there was a rumour of a High Ct case where Art 8 was being employed against a non-public authority landlord. The case was Quadrant Brownswood Tenant Cooperative Limited v White (HC 09 C 03494). Does anyone know what happened to it?

Posted in Housing law - All.

12 Responses to “A post-Pinnock question”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • christian
    08/11/2010 at 10:01 am

    If you would like to know the latest you should pop along to Court 61 at the RCJ today (8 November).
    Judge Behrens will begin hearing the trial today – I think.
    Best wishes
    Christian [Property Law Blog]

  • C
    08/11/2010 at 12:20 pm

    I understand that public funding has been withdrawn and the tenant is acting in person….

  • JS
    08/03/2011 at 1:56 pm

    Anyone have any more news on this or whether there are any other such challenges yet before the High Court ?

    • CJ
      08/03/2011 at 6:15 pm

      Running one for Traveller re eviction from encampment by private company. In county court. May settle so no further details at present.Will let folk know.

  • CJ
    14/03/2011 at 9:35 pm

    Managed to persuade other side to go for six weeks at door of court today. So not changed the law yet I’m afraid but good result for client – we were worried we might end up with different kind of horizontal effect!!

  • CJ
    15/03/2011 at 10:14 am

    Yes especially when it was Peterborough County Court!!

  • p
    23/03/2011 at 12:05 am

    Quadrant Brownswood Tenant Cooperative Limited v White
    se for 3 days week of April 11th RCJ

  • P
    23/05/2011 at 5:15 am

    Before Lewison J on April 12th Mr White was granted permission to amend his defence as follows:

    1. The tenancy agreement states that it begins on 26.11.2001. Unlike the tenancy in Mexfield it does not say that it will continue until determined by notice.
    2. Under the heading “ending the tenancy” the Co-Op has the right to give NTQ; but only in certain circumstances.
    3. However, clause 4 of that section of the agreement says that the tenancy will end “on the death of the tenant”.
    4. The effect of this is that, subject to the right to give NTQ, it is a tenancy for life at a rent.
    5. Thus by virtue of section 149 (6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 it takes effect as a lease for 90 years.
    6. This gives it the necessary certainty at common law.
    7. If the Co-Op wishes to terminate the tenancy by NTQ before the death of the tenant, that amounts to a forfeiture: Clarke v Widnall [1976] 1 WLR 845; Clays Lane Co-Op v Patrick (1984) 49 P & CR 72
    8. But a forfeiture must be preceded by notice under s. 146 of the Law of Property Act which specifies the breach complained of.
    9. Although the covering letter with the NTQ specified the obligations alleged to have been broken, it did not specify the particular breach complained of.
    10. If the lease takes effect as a lease for 90 years (under s. 149 (6)) and if the service of NTQ is an effective forfeiture, then the court has power to give relief against forfeiture in an appropriate case; in which event this tenancy is HRA compliant.

    Qaudrant Brownswood’s top heavy team applied for an adjournment and I understand were left in such a state of disarray as to forget to ask for costs!

  • pugilist
    05/04/2012 at 7:35 pm

    On March 19th it was agreed by a consent order between the claimant and the defendant the the Defendant’s tenancy agreement created a tenancy for a term of 90 years pursuant to 2. 149 (6) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

    Much debate between both parties on what constitutes a tenancy or a lease.

    The wording used in s149(6) of the LPA 1925 is “lease, underlease or contract therefor”. Later in the same paragraph the interest is described as a “tenancy”. The text is below with both references highlighted.

    Any lease or underlease, at a rent, or in consideration of a fine, for life or lives or for any term of years determinable with life or lives, or on the marriage of the lessee, [or on the formation of a civil partnership between the lessee and another person,] or any contract therefor, made before or after the commencement of this Act, or created by virtue of Part V. of the Law of Property Act, 1922, shall take effect as a lease, underlease or contract therefor, for a term of ninety years determinable [after (as the case may be) the death or marriage of, or the formation of a civil partnership by, the original lessee or the survivor of the original lessees,] by at least one month’s notice in writing given to determine the same on one of the quarter days applicable to the tenancy, either by the lessor or the persons deriving title under him, to the person entitled to the leasehold interest, or if no such person is in existence by affixing the same to the premises, or by the lessee or other persons in whom the leasehold interest is vested to the lessor or the persons deriving title under him:

    Advice from Land Registry Office When to register a lease states it is compulsory to register a 90 year tenancy as a lease.
    http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/upload/documents/when_to_register.pdf

    • NL
      06/04/2012 at 8:55 pm

      Hmm. Sounds like a daft argument to me. A tenancy and a lease are just different words for the same thing. That we have come to talk about short term or periodic as tenancies and longer term as leases is, at best, a mere shorthand convention, with no meaning in law.

      So the case is now settled? Good.

Leave a Reply

By submitting a comment you confirm that you have read and agree to our comment policy, which is at http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/about-2/comment-policy/

row of sheds footer image