Erimus Housing Ltd v Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 303 (18 March 2014)

Erimus Housing Ltd v Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 303 (18 March 2014)

The parties' ongoing negotiations for a new lease and the lack of any agreement to create a periodic tenancy meant that EHL's occupation was as a tenant at will, not under a yearly tenancy. The notice given by EHL was therefore effective to terminate the tenancy.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 303
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Erimus Housing Limited; Respondent/claimant: Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Wallbrook Properties Ltd (as Trustees of the Centre Unit Trust)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Tenancy at Will, Periodic Tenancy, Holding Over, Security of Tenure, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Tenancy at Will Periodic Tenancy Holding Over Security of Tenure Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

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

Parties

Erimus Housing Limited

Appellant/defendant

Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Wallbrook Properties Ltd (as Trustees of the Centre Unit Trust)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's occupation after expiry of the lease was under a tenancy at will or a periodic yearly tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the notice given by the appellant was effective to terminate the tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The parties' ongoing negotiations for a new lease and the lack of any agreement to create a periodic tenancy meant that EHL's occupation was as a tenant at will, not under a yearly tenancy. The notice given by EHL was therefore effective to terminate the tenancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration granted that EHL occupied as a tenant at will and the notice given was effective to terminate the tenancy.