London Borough of Newham v Thomas-Van Staden

London Borough of Newham v Thomas-Van Staden

The lease's definition of 'the term' as including any period of holding over meant it was not a 'term of years certain', rendering the contracting out of sections 24 to 28 invalid. Therefore, the appellant's tenancy continued with statutory protection after expiry of the fixed term. For 1A Rathbone Market, there was no pleaded or proven binding agreement for a three-year lease; the appellant occupied as a tenant at will, and the notice given was sufficient.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The London Borough of Newham; Defendant/appellant: Mrs Ngozi Thomas-Van Staden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of 4/4A Rathbone Market; appeal dismissed in respect of 1A Rathbone Market.
Legal Topics
Security of Tenure, Contracted Out Tenancy, Tenancy at Will, Lease Agreements
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Security of Tenure Contracted Out Tenancy Tenancy at Will Lease Agreements

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Borough of Newham

Claimant/respondent

Mrs Ngozi Thomas-Van Staden

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's occupation after expiry of the fixed term was protected under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
  2. 2 Whether the lease was validly contracted out of sections 24 to 28 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether a binding agreement for a three-year lease was concluded for 1A Rathbone Market

Ratio Decidendi

The lease's definition of 'the term' as including any period of holding over meant it was not a 'term of years certain', rendering the contracting out of sections 24 to 28 invalid. Therefore, the appellant's tenancy continued with statutory protection after expiry of the fixed term. For 1A Rathbone Market, there was no pleaded or proven binding agreement for a three-year lease; the appellant occupied as a tenant at will, and the notice given was sufficient.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of 4/4A Rathbone Market; appeal dismissed in respect of 1A Rathbone Market.

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the judge's order for possession of 4/4A set aside; further directions to be given regarding forfeiture and consequential orders.
  • Order for possession of 1A Rathbone Market upheld; appellant's appeal and application regarding blocked drain dismissed.