Shaw v Davis [2001] EWCA Civ 621 (30 April 2001)

Shaw v Davis [2001] EWCA Civ 621 (30 April 2001)

The notice to quit dated 20 June 1999 was invalid as it failed to specify the required notice period or expiry date, and thus could not terminate the tenancy. The exclusion of Mr Shaw from the premises constituted a breach of the injunction and contempt of court. The proposed new evidence was either immaterial or added nothing significant to what was before the judge at first instance. The appeal had no prospect of success.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 621
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Donald Shaw; Defendant/applicant: Lawrence Davis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Permission to Adduce New Evidence
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Service of Notice to Quit, Termination of Tenancy, Adducing New Evidence on Appeal
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Service of Notice to Quit Termination of Tenancy Adducing New Evidence on Appeal

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Shaw

Claimant/respondent

Lawrence Davis

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Permission to Adduce New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice to quit served by the landlord was valid and properly served
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the tenant from the premises constituted a breach of the injunction and contempt of court
  3. 3 Whether new evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The notice to quit dated 20 June 1999 was invalid as it failed to specify the required notice period or expiry date, and thus could not terminate the tenancy. The exclusion of Mr Shaw from the premises constituted a breach of the injunction and contempt of court. The proposed new evidence was either immaterial or added nothing significant to what was before the judge at first instance. The appeal had no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Applications for extension of time and to adduce new evidence dismissed