Image from Google Jackets

Springfield Investments Ltd v Bell

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 02 EG 157-163(4)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 8 June 1990 Appeal by tenant (B) from a cc decision granting the landlords (S) an order for possession of a cottage under Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 Case 16 (where a dwelling has at any time been occupied by a person employed in agriculture and is required for such a person employed by the landlord). CC accepted the evidence on behalf of S that a copy of a fair rent certificate was given to B, prior to the grant of the tenancy, and that the document stated that it was proposed to let on a regulated tenancy basis, subject to Case 16. B contended that Case 16(b) had not been complied with, in that the certificate was not a notice for the purposes of Case 16; it was not a notice given to the tenant, but a document issued to the landlord who gave it to the tenant. CA held, dismissing appeal, that a notice satisfying Case 16(b) does not have to be in a specific form. The certificate made it clear to B that possession might be required for an agricultural worker . Therefore it satisfied Cas
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43981 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 44555-1001

CA 8 June 1990 Appeal by tenant (B) from a cc decision granting the landlords (S) an order for possession of a cottage under Rent Act 1977 Sched 15 Case 16 (where a dwelling has at any time been occupied by a person employed in agriculture and is required for such a person employed by the landlord). CC accepted the evidence on behalf of S that a copy of a fair rent certificate was given to B, prior to the grant of the tenancy, and that the document stated that it was proposed to let on a regulated tenancy basis, subject to Case 16. B contended that Case 16(b) had not been complied with, in that the certificate was not a notice for the purposes of Case 16; it was not a notice given to the tenant, but a document issued to the landlord who gave it to the tenant. CA held, dismissing appeal, that a notice satisfying Case 16(b) does not have to be in a specific form. The certificate made it clear to B that possession might be required for an agricultural worker . Therefore it satisfied Cas