Lynch v Kirby [2010] EWHC 297 (QB) (28 January 2010)

Lynch v Kirby [2010] EWHC 297 (QB) (28 January 2010)

An assured tenancy was created on 20th February 1997 because the appellant was granted exclusive possession, a pre-tenancy determination form was signed, and the objective evidence demonstrated an intention to create legal relations, regardless of the respondent's subjective intention. The judge erred by considering...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 297 (QB)
Parties
Applicant: Martin Lynch; Respondent: Kirby
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Possession
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assured Tenancy, Exclusive Possession, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Housing Benefit, Possession Proceedings
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Contract Law Assured Tenancy Exclusive Possession Intention to Create Legal Relations Housing Benefit Possession Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Martin Lynch

Applicant

Kirby

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an assured tenancy was created on 20th February 1997
  2. 2 Whether exclusive possession and intention to create legal relations existed at the relevant time
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred by considering subjective intention rather than objective intention

Ratio Decidendi

An assured tenancy was created on 20th February 1997 because the appellant was granted exclusive possession, a pre-tenancy determination form was signed, and the objective evidence demonstrated an intention to create legal relations, regardless of the respondent's subjective intention. The judge erred by considering subjective intention rather than the objective facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claim for possession dismissed