Hall v King and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 283(6352) 19 September 1987, 1400-1403(2)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 22 June 1987. Appeal by one of the defendants, Mrs King, against a county court decision, granting orders for possession . Mr King took a tenancy of a cottage to provide accommodation for his wife after their separation, but he did not live there himself. Mr King was a protected tenant under the Rent Act 1977 , and would have been entitled on its termination to remain as a statutory tenant under S2(1)(a) of the Act. The landlord terminated the husband`s protected tenancy , and claimed possession against both. The county court made possession orders, the husband accepted, the wife appealed, claiming security of tenure under either the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 , or under case law. The CA held that the premises had not been occupied as a matrimonial home and the wife was the licensee of an absentee tenant. The wife did not share the security of tenure and the landlord was entitled to possession. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38193 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 9119-1001 |
CA 22 June 1987. Appeal by one of the defendants, Mrs King, against a county court decision, granting orders for possession . Mr King took a tenancy of a cottage to provide accommodation for his wife after their separation, but he did not live there himself. Mr King was a protected tenant under the Rent Act 1977 , and would have been entitled on its termination to remain as a statutory tenant under S2(1)(a) of the Act. The landlord terminated the husband`s protected tenancy , and claimed possession against both. The county court made possession orders, the husband accepted, the wife appealed, claiming security of tenure under either the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 , or under case law. The CA held that the premises had not been occupied as a matrimonial home and the wife was the licensee of an absentee tenant. The wife did not share the security of tenure and the landlord was entitled to possession. Appeal dismissed.