Image from Google Jackets

Davies v Peterson

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 06 EG 130-138(4)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 October 1988. Appeal by tenant (P) against cc decision in favour of landlord`s (D) claims for possession of dwelling-house and for rent arrears and award on counterclaim for damages by P. D lived overseas visiting the UK annually and wished to obtain possession of the house to live in it during his visits. Cc judge made a possession order under Case 11 of the Rent Act 1977 and gave judgment for rent arrears amounting to £4,084, setting-off against the order a sum in respect of damages on P`s counterclaim. CA had to consider the provisions of Case 11 and P`s counterclaim. It was accepted that D had informed P orally that he might want to recover possession of the house at the end of the contractual tenancy. P submitted that the cc judge had not clarified all the relevant circumstances before concluding that D satisfied the residence requirement of Case 11. CA decided that it could not interfere with cc decision. As regards P`s counterclaim , it was submitted that the cc judge ha
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40367 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 23335-1001

CA 12 October 1988. Appeal by tenant (P) against cc decision in favour of landlord`s (D) claims for possession of dwelling-house and for rent arrears and award on counterclaim for damages by P. D lived overseas visiting the UK annually and wished to obtain possession of the house to live in it during his visits. Cc judge made a possession order under Case 11 of the Rent Act 1977 and gave judgment for rent arrears amounting to £4,084, setting-off against the order a sum in respect of damages on P`s counterclaim. CA had to consider the provisions of Case 11 and P`s counterclaim. It was accepted that D had informed P orally that he might want to recover possession of the house at the end of the contractual tenancy. P submitted that the cc judge had not clarified all the relevant circumstances before concluding that D satisfied the residence requirement of Case 11. CA decided that it could not interfere with cc decision. As regards P`s counterclaim , it was submitted that the cc judge ha