Gladyric Ltd v Collinson and another

Rent Act 1977 — Question as to suitability of alternative accommodation — Cottage let to lecturer at an Oxford college and fiancee, the letting expressed to be for a short time only — Landlords hoped to secure planning permission for development and when this failed they gave the tenants notice to quit and, on their failure to leave, brought proceedings for possession — Landlords offered either of two flats, both in North Oxford, like subject property, as alternative accommodation — Both were rejected by tenants — Among their objections were that one was a basement flat, that neither flat had as much space as the cottage, that the alternative accommodation was in multi-occupation, and that some of the occupants were students, who were noisy — The county court judge, who had viewed both the subject property and the alternative accommodation offered, considered that the alternative accommodation was not much different in area from the cottage, was equally accessible for the male tenant’s work and in an equally quiet part of Oxford, and in general suitable to his means and needs — The judge also decided that it was reasonable to make the order, which he did — Court of Appeal rejected various criticisms of the judgment, including a criticism that the judge had failed to deal specifically with the position of the fiancee — There was little evidential basis for any finding as to the fiancee’s needs — Judge reached correct conclusion — Appeal dismissed This was an appeal by John Collinson and Ruth Watkins, defendants in an action for possession, from a decision of Judge Medd at Oxford County Court in favour of their landlords, Gladyric Ltd (trading as the Oxford Academy of English). The action concerned premises described as a cottage in Northmoor Road, in North Oxford. Paul M Miller (instructed by Jefferson, Cooper & Co, of Oxford) appeared on behalf of the appellants; Simon Readhead (instructed by Cole & Cole, of Oxford) represented the respondents. Mr Readhead was not called on by the court. Giving judgment, LAWTON LJ said: This is an appeal by the defendants, Mr John Collinson and Miss Ruth Watkins, against the judgment and order of His Honour Judge Patrick Medd given on November 12 1982 whereby it was adjudged and ordered that the defendants should give the plaintiffs possession of the Cottage, Northmoor Road, Oxford, on December 10 1982 and should pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the action to be taxed. The defendants have asked the court to set aside that judgment completely or alternatively to order a new trial. The plaintiffs are a limited liability company called Gladyric Ltd. They carry on in Oxford a language school for foreign students under the style of the Oxford Academy of English. They have premises in North Oxford and among the premises which they own and occupy is a cottage in Northmoor Road. The learned judge saw the cottage in the circumstances to which I shall be referring later. He described it as a somewhat unusual cottage to find in North Oxford. It stood in a fair amount of ground. The ground was unkempt and the cottage itself was not well maintained from a decorative point of view. Understandably, the plaintiffs had schemes for developing the site if they could get planning permission. In the late autumn of 1981 they had a planning application before the local planning authority. They did not know what to do with the cottage pending the hearing of their planning application and it occurred to somebody that it might be sensible to let the cottage pending the determination of the planning application. They got to know of the needs of the first defendant, Mr Collinson. He is a lecturer attached to Mansfield College, Oxford. His subject is ethnology, and he had about that time found himself in housing difficulties as he had had to give up his accommodation in some premises which he had occupied in another part of North Oxford. As a result, there were discussions between Mr Collinson and the principal of the Oxford Academy of English, a Mrs Mason, and the bursar of that academy, a Mr Burnie. As a result of those discussions it was orally agreed in or about December 1981 that Mr Collinson should have a tenancy of the cottage. How Miss Watkins comes into the story is not clear, but I will accept for the purposes of this judgment that it was understood that Miss Watkins would at some time in the future be occupying the cottage with Mr Collinson. We have been told today that in December 1981 Mr Collinson and Miss Watkins were engaged. We have also been told today that at the date of the trial they were not married but they are getting married very shortly. It was said by Mr Burnie, the bursar, that it was made clear to Mr Collinson that the cottage would be let to him for only a short time. The learned judge found as a fact that that was so. The plaintiffs’ application for planning permission failed in March 1982. As a result the plaintiffs decided that they would like possession of the cottage with a view to selling it. They gave notice to quit to the defendants. They did not quit. As the cottage was clearly within the Rent Acts it was necessary for the plaintiffs to find some legal ground for getting an order for possession against the defendants. Rather surprisingly, they were able to find in North Oxford two sets of premises which they could offer to Mr Collinson and his fiancee. One was a property at 5 St Margaret’s Road and the other was one at 38 St Margaret’s Road. From the notes of evidence and the judgment it is not clear what kind of properties these were. They were in the form of flats. It was said that 5 St Margaret’s Road was in multiple occupation. We have been told by Mr Miller, who has appeared on behalf of the defendants, that 38 St Margaret’s Road was probably a semi-detached Victorian house of a kind very common in North Oxford, which at some time had been divided into flats. The flat at 38 St Margaret’s Road which was offered to the defendants was on the ground floor. The defendants were not attracted by either of the flats offered to them and they refused to accept either. As a result, proceedings for possession were started in the Oxford County Court. The case was heard by His Honour Judge Medd on November 12 1982. The plaintiffs, of course, had to open their case and we have been told that at the midday adjournment or thereabouts, after the plaintiffs’ evidence had been concluded, the judge decided to have a view both of the cottage the subject-matter of the action and of the alternative accommodation which the plaintiffs had offered to the defendants. He did have a view of all three sets of premises. He returned to court and then heard the defendants’ case. Mr Collinson gave evidence. Miss Watkins did not give evidence. It was said by way of explanation for her absence from the witness-box that she had had a nervous breakdown and could not bring herself to come to court. It is now necessary to look to see what reasons the defendant, Mr Collinson, gave for saying that the alternative accommodation offered was unsuitable. In relation to 5 St Margaret’s Road the judge’s notes of evidence read as follows: ‘It is a basement flat and I cannot sleep in basement. Fiancee does not like possibility of being looked at. Nor do I like multi-occupied premises. Ping-pong room below does not cause much trouble. 5 St Margaret’s Road would get furniture in.’  The reference to the ‘Fiancee does not like possibility of being looked at’ seems to refer to the fact that, being a basement flat, the bedroom and bathroom would be at a low level and people could look in. But evidence had been given, no doubt as a result of cross-examination on that point, that the windows of both the bedroom and the bathroom had been frosted over, so there was no real point in that particular matter. The fact that Mr Collinson does not like living in multi-occupied premises seems to be an idiosyncratic peculiarity of his own and hardly a factor to which much attention should be paid in dealing with an application for possession under the Rent Acts on the basis that alternative accommodation is available. So far as 38 St Margaret’s Road is concerned, the judge’s notes of evidence read as follows: ‘Could not get stuff in’ — by ‘stuff’ is meant his furniture — ‘I would have to sell furniture. Neither flat has as much space as cottage. Fiancee cannot meet strangers in this sort of accommodation.’  He went on to say: ‘I have tried to find other places.’ We have been told by counsel, and it seems to be correct having regard to the terms of the judge’s judgment, that a little more information was given by Mr Collinson about the unsuitability of these premises. As I have said, he is a lecturer at Mansfield College, Oxford. He seems to have said in the course of his evidence that students came to wherever he was living for the purposes of their work. Quite what that meant it is difficult to know on the sparse information which Mr Collinson seems to have given, but for the purposes of this judgment I will assume that from time to time his students do come to where he is living for the purposes of what in Oxford are known as tutorials. I am prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that in Oxford a tutorial normally is attended by either one, two or possibly three persons but not very often more than three and usually less than three. It follows that not a great deal of accommodation is necessary to accommodate students for the purposes of tutorials. It is also said that it was explained to the judge that Miss Watkins had had a nervous breakdown and that was the explanation for her reluctance to meet strangers. There was no medical evidence of any kind to show that Mr Collinson himself had any medical peculiarities which made it difficult for him to sleep in a basement flat, nor was there any medical evidence to show that Miss Watkins would have any unusual difficulties in meeting strangers in the course of opening the door of 38 St Margaret’s Road and going to the flat door inside the hall. Indeed there was a scarcity of evidence all round. But the judge did have the advantage of having seen both the cottage and the two sets of alternative premises. He also had the advantage of having had that view before he heard Mr Collinson’s evidence. So when Mr Collinson was making such points as he did make about the unsuitability of the premises the judge would have known what he was talking about. In the course of his judgment the learned judge dealt with the suitability of the premises, as of course he had to do. He dealt with this issue in this way: Mr Collinson says these properties are not suitable. Mr Collinson is a person who teaches at Mansfield College in the Department of Ethnology of the University and does some writing in the early mornings. People come to see him at home in connection with work. He told me that he would not move because no 38 was too small. I do not think there is a great difference in area. With regard to no 5 Mr Collinson says it is a quasi-basement and says he cannot sleep in it. I have seen the premises. In my view, it is suitable, in the sense that it is equally accessible for all Mr Collinson’s needs for work. It is equally accessible for Mr Collinson’s work and it is in an equally quiet part of Oxford. Given that you will not find another place like the Cottage; it is as nearly as possible suitable to his means and needs and there is room for him to do what he says he does. Mr Collinson has his fiancee with him. He puts his case that I should consider her needs too. And the judge seemingly did. The students are a little more obtrusive but I do not think there is very much to choose between them on that ground. The evidence with regard to that was this, that at the cottage there was a ping-pong room which the students used and from time to time they were noisy, and one of the alternative premises, perhaps both, were occupied, as so many premises in North Oxford are, by students and they could be noisy. But then if you live in North Oxford you have got to take the chance that you will have students living near you. The judge went on: It is suggested that there is a difference in area. There may be degrees of difference between the location of the properties for estate agents but for general purposes there are no very great differences. For these reasons, I consider that they are suitable alternative accommodation. Mr Miller, who has conducted this appeal with skill and pertinacity, has submitted that there are serious omissions and misdirections in that passage of the judgment to which I have referred. He has set them out in detail in his notice of appeal. He says in effect that the learned judge left a number of loose ends and made no specific findings. For example, he did not specifically find whether or not Mr Collinson’s evidence should be accepted that he could not sleep in the basement flat at 5 St Margaret’s Road. He also complained that he made no specific finding about Mr Collinson’s evidence to the effect that he could not get all his furniture into no 38. There are a number of details of that kind set out in the notice of appeal and developed by Mr Miller in this court. It was pointed out to Mr Miller in the course of argument that county court judges dealing with this kind of case cannot be expected to give long detailed judgments. Indeed, it would not be in the interests of the administration of justice in the county court if they did. They have to get to the heart of the case as quickly as they can and make their finding on it. The heart of this case was whether or not the alternative accommodation which had been offered was suitable. The best way for a county court judge to decide whether it is or it is not is to listen to the evidence of the parties and have a view and, having had a view, he is in a far better position than this court to decide whether the offered accommodation is suitable. That is what the judge did and he found that the alternative accommodation was suitable. For my part, I can see no possible ground of appeal in this case. Indeed, I am surprised that it has been brought. The learned judge went on to deal with the matter of reasonableness, because in all these cases, as the statute says, not only must the judge be satisfied that there is at least one of the grounds set out in the statute for making the order but he must go on to satisfy himself that the making of the order would be reasonable, and that is what Judge Medd did. He put the matter in this way: I think it is reasonable to make an order. I weigh in balance the financial hardship to the college and Mr Collinson’s needs. In bringing the scale down on the side of the plaintiff I take into account that I think Mr Collinson knew it was to be for a limited time. I think it is reasonable to make an order. Mr Miller has accepted that, although Mr Collinson would have preferred the judge to have accepted his evidence in preference to that of Mr Burnie, the fact that he had been told, according to Mr99 Burnie, that the letting would be for a short time was a factor which the learned judge could take into account when deciding whether or not, in all the circumstances, the making of an order was reasonable. Mr Miller has criticised that aspect of the judgment by saying that the judge did not specifically refer to the position of Miss Watkins. As was pointed out to Mr Miller in the course of argument, the evidence with regard to Miss Watkins was most unsatisfactory. There may have been good reasons for her not being called, but the fact is she was not called and, as far as we can judge from the notes of evidence and what the learned judge said in the course of his judgment, there was very little by way of an evidential basis for making any findings with regard to Miss Watkins’ needs. In those circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to consider the further question whether in any event the judge was bound to consider the needs of a fiancee in the circumstances of this case. There was just no evidence upon which he could reasonably have been expected to do so. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal. Agreeing, OLIVER LJ said: I would not in the ordinary way add anything save that I, too, wish to pay tribute to the skill with which Mr Miller has presented what on any analysis was an extremely difficult case for him. He has, with total propriety and not a little fortitude, grasped at every straw in the wind, whether real or illusory, in a gallant endeavour to assemble sufficient of that essential material to put together the minimum number of bricks necessary to found his case. But I cannot allow my admiration for his advocacy to blind me to the fact that his material, through no fault of his, is entirely inadequate for that purpose. I am left in no doubt at the end that the learned judge came to the right conclusion on the evidence before him. I, too, would dismiss the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs and possession ordered within 14 days.