Appleton v Aspin and others
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8804) 30 January 1988, 123-127(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 November 1987. An appeal by the protected tenant of a freehold house from a decision in the ChD granting possession of the house to the purchaser, the plaintiff, in an action for specific performance . At issue was whether the Rent Act 1977 s98(1) forbids the court from making a possession order against a protected tenant who, joining with the landlord, the vendor, agreed with the purchaser to give vacant possession on completion. Briefly, the tenant, Mrs Plane, bought a house which was conveyed to her daughter, Mrs Aspin, but she continued to live there under an " occupation agreement ". Subsequently, an agreement for the sale of the house was entered into with the plaintiff, who insisted a special condition should be included in the contract whereby Mrs Plane undertook not to enforce any right of possession or occupation against the purchaser. Both Mrs Plane and Mrs Aspin signed the contract. After completion, the tenant did not give possession to the purchaser and he started| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38711 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 12095-1001 |
CA 19 November 1987. An appeal by the protected tenant of a freehold house from a decision in the ChD granting possession of the house to the purchaser, the plaintiff, in an action for specific performance . At issue was whether the Rent Act 1977 s98(1) forbids the court from making a possession order against a protected tenant who, joining with the landlord, the vendor, agreed with the purchaser to give vacant possession on completion. Briefly, the tenant, Mrs Plane, bought a house which was conveyed to her daughter, Mrs Aspin, but she continued to live there under an " occupation agreement ". Subsequently, an agreement for the sale of the house was entered into with the plaintiff, who insisted a special condition should be included in the contract whereby Mrs Plane undertook not to enforce any right of possession or occupation against the purchaser. Both Mrs Plane and Mrs Aspin signed the contract. After completion, the tenant did not give possession to the purchaser and he started