Clore v Macnicol [2004] EWCA Civ 1055 (13 July 2004)

Clore v Macnicol [2004] EWCA Civ 1055 (13 July 2004)

The letter of 4th July 2000 did not effect an assignment of tenancy but was a surrender of succession rights by the brother in favour of the appellant. There was no assured tenancy vested in the brother that could be assigned, and the statutory framework does not permit assignment in these circumstances without landlord's consent. The appellant was not entitled to an assured tenancy by succession and was correctly found to be an assured shorthold tenant.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1055
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Clore; Appellant/defendant: Macnicol (Mrs Anita Macnicol)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (possession Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assured Tenancy, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Succession Rights, Assignment and Surrender of Tenancy, Rent Act 1977, Housing Act 1988
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Assured Tenancy Assured Shorthold Tenancy Succession Rights Assignment and Surrender of Tenancy Rent Act 1977 +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clore

Respondent/claimant

Macnicol (Mrs Anita Macnicol)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (possession Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant occupied the property as an assured tenant by succession or as an assured shorthold tenant
  2. 2 Whether the letter of 4th July 2000 constituted an assignment or a surrender of tenancy rights

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 4th July 2000 did not effect an assignment of tenancy but was a surrender of succession rights by the brother in favour of the appellant. There was no assured tenancy vested in the brother that could be assigned, and the statutory framework does not permit assignment in these circumstances without landlord's consent. The appellant was not entitled to an assured tenancy by succession and was correctly found to be an assured shorthold tenant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order for possession stands