Chios Property Investment Co Ltd v Lopez
Chios Property Investment Co Ltd v Lopez
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8805) 6 February 1988, 57(1) .
CA 28 October 1987. Appeal by landlord (C) from cc decision in favour of defendant (L) in an action for possession . Cc held that L was the statutory tenant of C`s flat in succession to the deceased tenant (S), L being a member of S`s family and residing with him at the time of and for a period of six months immediately before his death. L had lived with S for two years and they had intended to marry. Both regarded their relationship as permanent. L had to show that a sufficient state of permanence and stability had been reached in the relationship with the deceased protected or statutory tenant for the occupant to be a considered a member of the original tenant`s family. C contended that cc had erred and noted the absence of children and the shortness of the relationship. On appeal, CA held that there were no grounds for interfering with the judge`s conclusion, he had applied the correct test. C`s appeal dismissed, but the court emphasised that this was an exceptional case and shoul
COHABITATION
DYSON HOLDINGS LTD V FOX
HELBY V RAFFERTY
PROTECTED TENANCY
WATSON V LUCAS
CA 28 October 1987. Appeal by landlord (C) from cc decision in favour of defendant (L) in an action for possession . Cc held that L was the statutory tenant of C`s flat in succession to the deceased tenant (S), L being a member of S`s family and residing with him at the time of and for a period of six months immediately before his death. L had lived with S for two years and they had intended to marry. Both regarded their relationship as permanent. L had to show that a sufficient state of permanence and stability had been reached in the relationship with the deceased protected or statutory tenant for the occupant to be a considered a member of the original tenant`s family. C contended that cc had erred and noted the absence of children and the shortness of the relationship. On appeal, CA held that there were no grounds for interfering with the judge`s conclusion, he had applied the correct test. C`s appeal dismissed, but the court emphasised that this was an exceptional case and shoul
COHABITATION
DYSON HOLDINGS LTD V FOX
HELBY V RAFFERTY
PROTECTED TENANCY
WATSON V LUCAS