Gilpin & Ors v Legg

Gilpin & Ors v Legg

The claimants had periodic tenancies from year to year of the hut plots, not licences, but the tenancies were validly terminated by the second notice to quit expiring 31 March 2016. The first notice was invalid for insufficient notice. No proprietary estoppel arose as there were no clear assurances intended to bind successors, nor unconscionability. The huts remained chattels, not fixtures.

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 Landlord and Tenant / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim for declaration allowed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Vs Licence, Proprietary Estoppel, Notices to Quit, Fixtures and Chattels, Assignment of Tenancies
Land Law Landlord and Tenant Tenancy Vs Licence Proprietary Estoppel Notices to Quit Fixtures and Chattels Assignment of Tenancies

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 5 Authorities cited 26 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 Landlord and Tenant / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants had tenancies or licences over hut plots
  2. 2 Whether notices to quit were valid and effective
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel arose in claimants' favour

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants had periodic tenancies from year to year of the hut plots, not licences, but the tenancies were validly terminated by the second notice to quit expiring 31 March 2016. The first notice was invalid for insufficient notice. No proprietary estoppel arose as there were no clear assurances intended to bind successors, nor unconscionability. The huts remained chattels, not fixtures.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim for declaration allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that claimants' periodic tenancies were determined by notice expiring 31 March 2016
  • No proprietary estoppel in claimants' favour