Dymond v Arundel-Timms and others
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 21 EG 107-115(5)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 27 November 1990. D applied to acquire the freehold of a house under Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in February 1988. The owners AT objected and D appealed. The question arose as to whether at the relevant time D had been occupying it as her residence for the last three years or for periods amounting to three years in the last ten years. In 1984 she had moved to the house with two of her sons although one son had remained in the previously occupied cottage in which she still kept furniture. From October 1987 she spent less time at the house dividing her time between the cottage and a friends house. The original hearing held in D`s favour. AT appealed but this was rejected on the grounds that ` main residence ` did not necessarily mean ` sole residence `.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44695 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 48570-1001 |
CA 27 November 1990. D applied to acquire the freehold of a house under Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in February 1988. The owners AT objected and D appealed. The question arose as to whether at the relevant time D had been occupying it as her residence for the last three years or for periods amounting to three years in the last ten years. In 1984 she had moved to the house with two of her sons although one son had remained in the previously occupied cottage in which she still kept furniture. From October 1987 she spent less time at the house dividing her time between the cottage and a friends house. The original hearing held in D`s favour. AT appealed but this was rejected on the grounds that ` main residence ` did not necessarily mean ` sole residence `.