Jones v Cleanthi

Jones v Cleanthi

The erection of the wall pursuant to a statutory notice under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 did not extinguish the tenant's easement once and for all, as the statutory regime did not authorise permanent expropriation of property rights. However, the landlord's compliance with the statutory duty did not constitute an actionable interference with the tenant's rights, and no remedy lies against the landlord or his successor.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Elizabeth Jones; Respondent/defendant: Christos Emmanuel Cleanthi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extinguishment of Easements, Statutory Obligations and Property Rights, Nuisance, Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment, Housing Act Compliance
Land Law Landlord and Tenant Statutory Interpretation Extinguishment of Easements Statutory Obligations and Property Rights Nuisance Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Housing Act Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Jones

Appellant/claimant

Christos Emmanuel Cleanthi

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the erection of a wall pursuant to a statutory notice extinguished the tenant's easement to access communal refuse bins and the rear area
  2. 2 Whether the landlord's compliance with a statutory duty constituted an actionable interference with the tenant's rights
  3. 3 Whether the statutory regime under the Housing Act 1985 impliedly authorises the expropriation of property rights

Ratio Decidendi

The erection of the wall pursuant to a statutory notice under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 did not extinguish the tenant's easement once and for all, as the statutory regime did not authorise permanent expropriation of property rights. However, the landlord's compliance with the statutory duty did not constitute an actionable interference with the tenant's rights, and no remedy lies against the landlord or his successor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed