Santos & Anor v Compatriot Holdings Ltd

Santos & Anor v Compatriot Holdings Ltd

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to plead or give notice of the alleged gap between the respondents’ tenancies, and the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the respondents were tenants of room 79 immediately after room 74, and that the housekeeper had authority to grant the tenancy. The judge’s findings of fact were not perverse or unsupported.

Parties
Respondents: Santos & Anr; Appellant: Compatriot Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Regulated Tenancy, Transitional Protection, Rent Act 1977, Housing Act 1988, Tenancy Succession
Landlord and Tenant Law Regulated Tenancy Transitional Protection Rent Act 1977 Housing Act 1988 Tenancy Succession

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

Parties

Santos & Anr

Respondents

Compatriot Holdings Limited

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were regulated tenants under the Rent Act 1977 by virtue of transitional protection under section 34(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether there was a gap between the termination of the respondents’ tenancy of room 74 and the commencement of their tenancy of room 79, defeating transitional protection
  3. 3 Whether the respondents’ occupation of room 79 was as tenants of the appellant or as unlawful sub-tenants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to plead or give notice of the alleged gap between the respondents’ tenancies, and the trial judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the respondents were tenants of room 79 immediately after room 74, and that the housekeeper had authority to grant the tenancy. The judge’s findings of fact were not perverse or unsupported.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that respondents are regulated tenants under the Rent Act 1977 stands
  • Appellant’s counterclaim for possession and arrears dismissed