Thomas v Smalling

Thomas v Smalling

The judge found that the lower court correctly refused relief from sanctions due to serious and significant breaches without good reason, and that the balancing exercise was not obviously untenable. The tenancy agreement and gifted deposit declaration were not shams but reflected the parties' true agreement. The defendant had no beneficial interest in the property, only a contractual right to a discount if she could purchase it. Permission to appeal was refused.

Parties
Appellant: Delsie Thomas; Respondent: Daphne Veronica Smalling
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Sham Documents, Beneficial Interest in Property, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Possession Proceedings
Land Law Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Sham Documents Beneficial Interest in Property Assured Shorthold Tenancy Possession Proceedings

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

Parties

Delsie Thomas

Appellant

Daphne Veronica Smalling

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court erred in refusing relief from sanctions for non-compliance with case management orders
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy agreement and gifted deposit declaration were shams
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had a beneficial interest in the property

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the lower court correctly refused relief from sanctions due to serious and significant breaches without good reason, and that the balancing exercise was not obviously untenable. The tenancy agreement and gifted deposit declaration were not shams but reflected the parties' true agreement. The defendant had no beneficial interest in the property, only a contractual right to a discount if she could purchase it. Permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal the refusal of relief from sanctions is refused
  • Appeal on substantive issues is dismissed