Image from Google Jackets

Dibbs and others v Campbell

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8830) 30 July 1988, 49-55(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 23 February 1988 Appeal by Campbell (C) and another from a cc decision granting possession of premises to Dibbs (D) and others. In 1982 D intended to grant to C a protected shorthold tenancy as defined by Housing Act 1980 s52 , but there was a failure to apply within the time limited by s52(1)(c) for registration of a fair rent with the result that the tenancy was not a valid shorthold tenancy. The parties decided to retrieve the situation by surrender of the existing tenancy and the grant by D of a new tenancy, this time for three years. C did not physically go out of possession. At the end of the three years D sought possession under Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 Case 19 which was upheld by cc. C appealed, arguing that the purported surrender of the original tenancy was ineffective as C had not physically left the premises and therefore grant of the new tenancy fell foul of s52(2). CA held, dismissing appeal, that it was not necessary in order to effect the surrender of a protected ten
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39514 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 17257-1001

CA 23 February 1988 Appeal by Campbell (C) and another from a cc decision granting possession of premises to Dibbs (D) and others. In 1982 D intended to grant to C a protected shorthold tenancy as defined by Housing Act 1980 s52 , but there was a failure to apply within the time limited by s52(1)(c) for registration of a fair rent with the result that the tenancy was not a valid shorthold tenancy. The parties decided to retrieve the situation by surrender of the existing tenancy and the grant by D of a new tenancy, this time for three years. C did not physically go out of possession. At the end of the three years D sought possession under Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 Case 19 which was upheld by cc. C appealed, arguing that the purported surrender of the original tenancy was ineffective as C had not physically left the premises and therefore grant of the new tenancy fell foul of s52(2). CA held, dismissing appeal, that it was not necessary in order to effect the surrender of a protected ten