Coker, R (on the application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel & Anor [2006] EWHC 2367 (Admin) (19 May 2006)

Coker, R (on the application of) v London Rent Assessment Panel & Anor [2006] EWHC 2367 (Admin) (19 May 2006)

The Tomlin Order did not effect a surrender and regrant of the tenancy as the changes were not sufficiently fundamental; there was no increase in the premises demised or the length of the term. The Panel's assessment of market rent was not unreasonable or unlawful.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2367 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Coker; First Defendant: London Rent Assessment Panel; Second Defendant: Lawnpond Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal on Point of Law Under Section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Surrender and Regrant of Tenancy, Variation of Tenancy Agreements, Rent Assessment, Jurisdiction of Rent Assessment Panels
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Administrative Law Surrender and Regrant of Tenancy Variation of Tenancy Agreements Rent Assessment Jurisdiction of Rent Assessment Panels

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coker

Claimant

London Rent Assessment Panel

First Defendant

Lawnpond Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal on Point of Law Under Section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tomlin Order constituted a surrender and regrant of tenancy or a mere variation
  2. 2 Whether the Panel erred in its assessment of market rent

Ratio Decidendi

The Tomlin Order did not effect a surrender and regrant of the tenancy as the changes were not sufficiently fundamental; there was no increase in the premises demised or the length of the term. The Panel's assessment of market rent was not unreasonable or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment; costs up to and including 23rd November 2005 to be certified and paid; costs thereafter to be paid as determined pursuant to section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.