Image from Google Jackets

Empson and another v Forde and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 18 EG 99-102(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 26 October 1989. Appeal by landlords (E) from cc decision refusing E an order for possession against the tenants (F) who occupied a ground floor flat in the property. E wanted to carry out repairs which would require F to move out temporarily. F was worried that the repairs could reduce their accommodation and increase their rent. F also feared that if they moved out they would not get back. After some time E served on F a notice to quit which converted their protected tenancy into a statutory tenancy . E claimed that the property invoked Cases 1 and 3 in Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 , but in order to bring themselves within Case 1 or Case 3, E had to prove that F had broken a term or condition of the tenancy. Cc judge decided that there had been no such breach and that there had been no refusal by F to allow access for the purpose of carrying out repairs. It was not necessary therefore to consider whether or not the order for possession was reasonable, but the judge was of the opinion
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42743 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 38672-1001

CA 26 October 1989. Appeal by landlords (E) from cc decision refusing E an order for possession against the tenants (F) who occupied a ground floor flat in the property. E wanted to carry out repairs which would require F to move out temporarily. F was worried that the repairs could reduce their accommodation and increase their rent. F also feared that if they moved out they would not get back. After some time E served on F a notice to quit which converted their protected tenancy into a statutory tenancy . E claimed that the property invoked Cases 1 and 3 in Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 , but in order to bring themselves within Case 1 or Case 3, E had to prove that F had broken a term or condition of the tenancy. Cc judge decided that there had been no such breach and that there had been no refusal by F to allow access for the purpose of carrying out repairs. It was not necessary therefore to consider whether or not the order for possession was reasonable, but the judge was of the opinion