Hughes v Borodex Ltd.

Hughes v Borodex Ltd.

The disregard of tenant improvements under Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 applies only to the initial rent determination for the assured periodic tenancy. Subsequent rent reviews are governed by sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988, which do not permit the disregard of improvements made under a previous long residential tenancy. There is no basis to interpret Schedule 10 as establishing an ongoing principle overriding the clear wording of the 1988 Act.

Parties
Appellant: Cherry Sheila Hughes; Respondent: Borodex Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assured Tenancies, Rent Determination, Tenant Improvements, Security of Tenure
Landlord and Tenant Law Statutory Interpretation Assured Tenancies Rent Determination Tenant Improvements Security of Tenure

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cherry Sheila Hughes

Appellant

Borodex Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether improvements made by a tenant under a long residential tenancy must be disregarded in fixing rent under a subsequent assured periodic tenancy after the initial rent determination
  2. 2 Whether Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 establishes an ongoing principle to disregard tenant improvements for all subsequent rent determinations

Ratio Decidendi

The disregard of tenant improvements under Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 applies only to the initial rent determination for the assured periodic tenancy. Subsequent rent reviews are governed by sections 13 and 14 of the Housing Act 1988, which do not permit the disregard of improvements made under a previous long residential tenancy. There is no basis to interpret Schedule 10 as establishing an ongoing principle overriding the clear wording of the 1988 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed