Image from Google Jackets

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.
Holdings
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.