Trustees of the Gift of Thomas Pocklington v Hill and Another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 36 EG 87-90(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 March 1989. Appeal by landlords (T) from cc decision dismissing a claim for possession of a house occupied successively by H and S, daughters of the original tenant (B). The house was let to B in the 1930s on a weekly tenancy. He lived there until he died in 1982. Shortly before his death, H who had married, moved back to nurse B. On his death, H took out letters of administration and continued to live in the house for several months, paying the rent. About two weeks before H left, her sister S moved in and has lived there since 1983. At issue was whether T were entitled to possession. Cc judge rejected their claim, on the grounds that B`s contractual tenancy had never been determined. It followed that H became a contractual tenant and there was no doubt that S occupied the house with her sister`s consent; she was therefore a protected tenant. CA agreed but the interpretation was different. CA considered the effects of Rent Act 1977 s49(4) . In the almost complete absence of ev| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41424 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 30061-1001 |
CA 16 March 1989. Appeal by landlords (T) from cc decision dismissing a claim for possession of a house occupied successively by H and S, daughters of the original tenant (B). The house was let to B in the 1930s on a weekly tenancy. He lived there until he died in 1982. Shortly before his death, H who had married, moved back to nurse B. On his death, H took out letters of administration and continued to live in the house for several months, paying the rent. About two weeks before H left, her sister S moved in and has lived there since 1983. At issue was whether T were entitled to possession. Cc judge rejected their claim, on the grounds that B`s contractual tenancy had never been determined. It followed that H became a contractual tenant and there was no doubt that S occupied the house with her sister`s consent; she was therefore a protected tenant. CA agreed but the interpretation was different. CA considered the effects of Rent Act 1977 s49(4) . In the almost complete absence of ev