Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals Charity v Roupell & Anor [2018] EWHC 1873 (Ch) (23 July 2018)

Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals Charity v Roupell & Anor [2018] EWHC 1873 (Ch) (23 July 2018)

The properties were never held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department; therefore, Crown immunity did not apply and the Defendants have always been protected tenants under the Rent Acts. The Claimant is not entitled to possession.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1873 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals Charity; Defendant: Anthony Charles Roupell; Defendant: Murray Head
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim (property Law) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims for possession dismissed
Legal Topics
Rent Act Protection, Crown Immunity, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Estoppel, National Health Service Legislation, Protected Tenancy, Regulated Tenancy
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Charity Law Public Law Rent Act Protection Crown Immunity Assured Shorthold Tenancy Estoppel +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals Charity

Claimant

Anthony Charles Roupell

Defendant

Murray Head

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim (property Law) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown immunity excluded Rent Act protection for the properties at any time between 1946 and 2015
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is estopped from denying Rent Act protection to the Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' tenancies became assured or assured shorthold tenancies after 1 April 2015

Ratio Decidendi

The properties were never held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department; therefore, Crown immunity did not apply and the Defendants have always been protected tenants under the Rent Acts. The Claimant is not entitled to possession.

Court Disposition

Claims for possession dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant's claims for possession of 14 and 14A Neville Street are dismissed.
  • The Defendants remain protected tenants under the Rent Acts.