3 Jul 2024
Leave to appeal was granted because the appellant demonstrated a reasonably arguable case that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the specified tenancy clauses and in the principles applied to the assessment of damages, giving the intended appeal reasonable prospects of success.
23 Nov 2011
Despite credibility findings, the respondent admitted non-payment and keeping a dog; the signed written tenancy binds the respondent to Clause 11; the solicitor's letter constituted requisite notice; therefore the applicant is entitled to an order for vacant possession, arrears at the contractual rate and costs.
17 May 2000
The Tribunal's confirmation of the notice to quit was quashed because there was no legal breach of Clause 2(j): the applicant lacked knowledge or reasonable suspicion and could not reasonably have foreseen the isolated gambling event, Clause 4(g) did not apply because the third party was not a servant, and the statutory finality provision did not preclude judicial review of errors of law by the Tribunal.
12 Jun 1990
The appeal was allowed: the Tribunal erred in refusing to let the applicant (a person in actual possession claiming an independent lawful sub-tenancy) be joined and in refusing to set aside the default possession order as to her. The applicant's delay was not wilful in the circumstances, she demonstrated arguable merit (certified translation confirmed clause 2 prohibited subletting of the whole only), and there were serious defects in service and in the handling of writ/possession procedure. Accordingly the possession order must be set aside insofar as it affects the applicant and she must be…
14 Feb 1990
The 2nd respondent was not a 'lodger' within clause 2(m) as construed in its ordinary, literal meaning because the occupation evidenced exclusive use and the 1st respondent retained control and dominion; therefore there was no breach justifying possession and the appeal was dismissed.