Murphy v Wyatt

Murphy v Wyatt

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 does not apply to the defendant's tenancy because planning permission for the mobile home was not present at the inception of the agreement and the tenancy covered land beyond the pitch; statutory protection is limited to agreements whose exclusive or substantially exclusive purpose is the grant of a right to station a mobile home on a pitch with lawful planning permission from inception.

Parties
Claimant: Diane Murphy; Defendant: Carol Wyatt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Security of Tenure, Statutory Interpretation, Planning Permission
Land Law Housing Law Mobile Homes Act 1983 Security of Tenure Statutory Interpretation Planning Permission

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diane Murphy

Claimant

Carol Wyatt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Mobile Homes Act 1983 apply to a tenancy where planning permission for the mobile home was granted after the tenancy commenced?
  2. 2 Does the Act apply to agreements covering land beyond the pitch of the mobile home?

Ratio Decidendi

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 does not apply to the defendant's tenancy because planning permission for the mobile home was not present at the inception of the agreement and the tenancy covered land beyond the pitch; statutory protection is limited to agreements whose exclusive or substantially exclusive purpose is the grant of a right to station a mobile home on a pitch with lawful planning permission from inception.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No statutory protection under Mobile Homes Act 1983 for defendant's tenancy
  • No order for possession under the Act