PB Investments Ltd. v McInnes

PB Investments Ltd. v McInnes

The trial judge considered all relevant circumstances, including the suitability of the alternative accommodation and the applicant's concerns, and was entitled to find it reasonable to make a possession order. The debarring order was justified due to the applicant's non-compliance, and she was allowed to participate sufficiently at trial. No error of law or procedural unfairness was established.

Parties
Appellant: PB Investments Limited; Respondent: McInnes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; order for possession affirmed with variation as to tenancy terms.
Legal Topics
Security of Tenure, Possession Proceedings, Alternative Accommodation, Debarring Orders, Reasonableness Under Rent Act 1977
Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure Security of Tenure Possession Proceedings Alternative Accommodation Debarring Orders Reasonableness Under Rent Act 1977

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

Parties

PB Investments Limited

Appellant

McInnes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether suitable alternative accommodation was available under section 98(1) of the Rent Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable to make an order for possession
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in not considering the suitability of alternative accommodation as part of reasonableness

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge considered all relevant circumstances, including the suitability of the alternative accommodation and the applicant's concerns, and was entitled to find it reasonable to make a possession order. The debarring order was justified due to the applicant's non-compliance, and she was allowed to participate sufficiently at trial. No error of law or procedural unfairness was established.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; order for possession affirmed with variation as to tenancy terms.

Orders

  • By consent, the tenancy to be a protected tenancy at £50 per week, otherwise on the terms of the draft agreement, with leave to apply to County Court to settle terms in case of dispute.
  • Permission to appeal refused on all three new issues; permission to amend notice of appeal refused; appeal dismissed.