Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues

Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues

When a statutory periodic tenancy arises after the commencement of the Housing Act 2004, any deposit held must be treated as paid and received in respect of the new tenancy, triggering the obligation to protect the deposit under section 213. Failure to comply invalidates any section 21 notice and precludes possession.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Superstrike Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Marino Rodrigues
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Deposit Protection, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Statutory Periodic Tenancy, Section 21 Notice
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Tenancy Deposit Protection Assured Shorthold Tenancy Statutory Periodic Tenancy Section 21 Notice

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

Parties

Superstrike Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Marino Rodrigues

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 apply to deposits paid before the Act's commencement when a statutory periodic tenancy arises?
  2. 2 Was the landlord entitled to serve a section 21 notice without complying with deposit protection requirements?

Ratio Decidendi

When a statutory periodic tenancy arises after the commencement of the Housing Act 2004, any deposit held must be treated as paid and received in respect of the new tenancy, triggering the obligation to protect the deposit under section 213. Failure to comply invalidates any section 21 notice and precludes possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Possession order set aside
  • Landlord not entitled to possession