Gilpin & Ors v Legg [2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch) (13 December 2017)

Gilpin & Ors v Legg [2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch) (13 December 2017)

The claimants have annual periodic tenancies of the plots on which their huts stand, not mere licences, as the arrangements granted exclusive possession for a term at a rent. The huts are chattels, not fixtures, but this does not preclude the existence of a tenancy. The defendant's notices to quit were valid to determine the tenancies, and the defendant is entitled to possession of the land and removal of the huts.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sarah Gilpin; Claimant: Elizabeth Hort; Claimant: Paul Ratliff; Claimant: Valerie Ratliff; Claimant: Patrick Moverley; Claimant: Julie Moverley; Defendant: Howard Legg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds
Legal Topics
Tenancy Vs Licence, Chattels and Fixtures, Notices to Quit, Exclusive Possession, Periodic Tenancy, Planning Permission, Proprietary Estoppel
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Tenancy Vs Licence Chattels and Fixtures Notices to Quit Exclusive Possession Periodic Tenancy Planning Permission +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Gilpin

Claimant

Elizabeth Hort

Claimant

Paul Ratliff

Claimant

Valerie Ratliff

Claimant

Patrick Moverley

Claimant

Julie Moverley

Claimant

Howard Legg

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have tenancies or licences over the land on which their huts stand
  2. 2 Whether the huts are chattels or fixtures forming part of the land
  3. 3 Validity and effect of the notices to quit served by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have annual periodic tenancies of the plots on which their huts stand, not mere licences, as the arrangements granted exclusive possession for a term at a rent. The huts are chattels, not fixtures, but this does not preclude the existence of a tenancy. The defendant's notices to quit were valid to determine the tenancies, and the defendant is entitled to possession of the land and removal of the huts.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds

Orders

  • Declarations that the claimants' rights have been determined by valid notices to quit
  • Claimants to deliver up possession of the plots and remove their huts