London Borough of Newham v Thomas-Van Staden [2008] EWCA Civ 1414 (29 July 2008)

London Borough of Newham v Thomas-Van Staden [2008] EWCA Civ 1414 (29 July 2008)

For 4/4A, the inclusion of 'any period of holding over or extension' in the lease meant the term was not a 'term of years certain', so the lease was not validly contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; thus, the appellant had security of tenure after expiry of the fixed term. For 1A, the appellant was only a tenant at will, as negotiations were subject to contract and no binding lease or right to notice was created; the judge erred in finding a binding agreement for a lease on 10 February 2005, as this was not pleaded or supported by evidence.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1414
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 Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of 4/4A Rathbone Market; appeal dismissed in respect of 1A Rathbone Market.
Legal Topics
Security of Tenure, Contracting Out of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Tenancy at Will, Periodic Tenancy, Subject to Contract, Forfeiture, Mesne Profits
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Law Security of Tenure Contracting Out of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Tenancy at Will Periodic Tenancy Subject to Contract +2 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease of 4/4A Rathbone Market was validly contracted out of sections 24-28 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had security of tenure after expiry of the fixed term for 4/4A
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's occupation of 1A Rathbone Market was under a tenancy at will or a binding agreement for a lease

Ratio Decidendi

For 4/4A, the inclusion of 'any period of holding over or extension' in the lease meant the term was not a 'term of years certain', so the lease was not validly contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; thus, the appellant had security of tenure after expiry of the fixed term. For 1A, the appellant was only a tenant at will, as negotiations were subject to contract and no binding lease or right to notice was created; the judge erred in finding a binding agreement for a lease on 10 February 2005, as this was not pleaded or supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Order for possession of 4/4A set aside; further directions to be determined regarding forfeiture and consequential orders.
  • Order for possession of 1A Rathbone Market upheld; mesne profits judgment against appellant stands; permission to appeal blocked drain claim refused.