16 Jan 2014
There is a genuine factual dispute over the use of the C1 unit which must be resolved at trial; therefore the claim against the second defendant is not obviously unsustainable and cannot be struck out under Order 18 r19.
30 Sept 2009
Summary judgment was refused because genuine factual disputes and plausible defences existed as to the scoop (possible prior market availability and supplier sourcing), the tea bag holder (inability to compare lost original drawings with pleaded work and contested chronology), and the timer (issue of alleged joint ownership requiring factual resolution); the court therefore granted unconditional leave to the 1st defendant to defend rather than enter summary judgment.
17 Nov 2008
There was no clear assurance or common intention by the Plaintiff to confer a beneficial interest; alleged detriments were outweighed by the benefits of long rent-free occupation and substantial gifts; it would not be unconscionable to allow the registered owner to enforce her legal rights; therefore possession was ordered for the Plaintiff and costs awarded.
15 Apr 1983
On the evidence the plaintiff entered into the tenancy on his own behalf and as agent for his mother; accordingly both registered owners are landlords for the purposes of s.53(2)(b) and the plaintiff cannot obtain possession solely on his individual need; claim dismissed.
4 Jul 1981
Plaintiffs, as joint owners, established on balance of probabilities a bona fide and reasonable requirement to occupy the premises; defendant failed to adduce evidence and therefore did not discharge the statutory burden under s.53(2)(b) to show that granting possession would be manifestly unjust or inequitable; judgment for possession accordingly follows.
29 May 1981
Where there are joint landlords the word 'landlord' in Section 53(2)(b) is to be interpreted jointly and severally, permitting joint landlords to claim possession where they reasonably require the premises for themselves jointly or for the residence of either one of them; accordingly the defendant's preliminary objection that Clause 7 disclosed no cause of action is overruled.
10 Dec 1971
Where property is in joint ownership the statutory ground permitting possession for occupation by the landlord must be read to require that the joint landlords collectively require the premises; if only one joint owner requires occupation the provision does not apply and no possession order can be made — the court is bound by McIntyre v. Hardcastle.