Arnold v Mann [1957] HCA 64

Arnold v Mann [1957] HCA 64

By majority (Dixon C.J. and Kitto J.), the trial judge was justified in concluding that, on the evidence, there was insufficient basis to infer an intention between Mrs. Keen and Towers to create or revive a new tenancy after the expiry of the notice to quit. The assignment by Towers to defendants could not confer a tenancy that did not exist. The conduct and correspondence did not establish consensus for a new weekly tenancy, nor did acceptance of rent within six months after notice suffice. Therefore, no assignable tenancy passed to the defendants, and Mrs. Mann was entitled to judgment for possession.

Parties
Appellants; Defendants: Arnold and Another; Respondent; Claimant: Mann
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia: on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court), Which Affirmed a Decision After a New Trial Limited to the Question of Existence of Tenancy
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Trial finding in favour of claimant (respondent) affirmed.
Legal Topics
Prescribed Premises, Notice to Quit, Tenancy Assignment, Holding Over, Creation of New Tenancy After Notice to Quit, Ejectment
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Prescribed Premises Notice to Quit Tenancy Assignment Holding Over Creation of New Tenancy After Notice to Quit Ejectment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnold and Another

Appellants; Defendants

Mann

Respondent; Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia: on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court), Which Affirmed a Decision After a New Trial Limited to the Question of Existence of Tenancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a new tenancy existed between Mrs. Keen (lessor) and James Towers (lessee) after the expiry of the notice to quit and before the purported assignment to the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the purported assignment by Towers to the defendants passed any tenancy capable of being assigned.
  3. 3 Whether conduct between expiry and assignment created or revived a weekly tenancy.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Dixon C.J. and Kitto J.), the trial judge was justified in concluding that, on the evidence, there was insufficient basis to infer an intention between Mrs. Keen and Towers to create or revive a new tenancy after the expiry of the notice to quit. The assignment by Towers to defendants could not confer a tenancy that did not exist. The conduct and correspondence did not establish consensus for a new weekly tenancy, nor did acceptance of rent within six months after notice suffice. Therefore, no assignable tenancy passed to the defendants, and Mrs. Mann was entitled to judgment for possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Trial finding in favour of claimant (respondent) affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Subject to an undertaking by the appellants to pay £5 a week to the respondent pending execution, order to be drawn as of 14 November 1957.