R v Croydon and South West London Rent Tribunal, ex parte Ryzewska

Rent Act 1968–Tenant’s application to fix rent under Part VI–Landlords claim holiday letting–Tribunal decided they had jurisdiction–Discretion of tribunals to decide preliminary question of jurisdiction–Principles to be observed by tribunals–Certiorari refused In these proceedings Helena Maria Ryzewska moved for an order of certiorari to quash a decision of the Croydon and South West London Rent Tribunal dated January 22 1976 by which they purported to fix a fair rent, on the tenant’s application, for a second-floor flat at premises owned by her at 30 Mulbrook Road, Putney, London. Roger Bartlett (instructed by Davies, Topping & Watkins) appeared for the applicant; Guy Mansfield (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the respondent tribunal. Giving the first judgment, CAULFIELD J said that the applicant owned a house in Putney which was divided into a number of flats. A Danish businessman, who was working in this country, entered into an agreement with the applicant to occupy one of the flats for 188 days at a rental of £3.50 per day. Endorsed on top of the agreement were the words ‘Short (working holiday) let.’  Subsequently the tenant applied to the tribunal to determine a reasonable rent under Part VI of the Rent Act 1968. Once the tenant had applied to the tribunal the applicant raised the question of the tribunal’s jurisdiction and claimed that the letting, as a holiday letting, was outside Part VI of the Act and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction. Before the tribunal proceeded to determine the rent it was at pains to offer both to the applicant and the tenant the opportunity of proceeding to the county court under section 105 of the Act to decide the jurisdiction point. The applicant’s solicitor indicated that it was for the tenant to go to the county court. The tenant merely queried the cost of going there and this query was treated by the tribunal as a refusal to accept the invitation to apply to the court. The tribunal had therefore52 given both parties the opportunity of having the question of the tribunal’s jurisdiction decided in the county court. The invitation having been declined by both parties, the tribunal had then gone on to decide the rent. In his (his Lordship’s) judgment every inferior tribunal, before determining the main issue for its consideration, had always to ask itself the preliminary question as to whether it had jurisdiction. The principles were fully explained in R v London etc Rent Tribunal, ex parte Honig [1951] 1 KB 641 and R v Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Zerek [1951] 2 KB 1. The difficulty in the present case was that section 105 of the Rent Act 1968 provided in the form of the county court an alternative forum for deciding jurisdiction in certain instances. Once the question of jurisdiction was raised it was the duty of the tribunal to use its discretion in a certain way. A tribunal should look at all the circumstances. It should not deny a party the chance to test the jurisdiction point under section 105. In the present case the tribunal had in fact given both parties an opportunity of proceeding under section 105, an opportunity which was not taken. It had, in his (his Lordship’s) judgment, proceeded strictly according to the principles which should be observed by a tribunal in a situation such as this. What a tribunal should do where there is an alternative forum, as where section 105 applies, was to listen to the contentions of the parties, and to make up its own mind whether it is better to proceed with the determination as to rent, having first of all decided the preliminary question of jurisdiction. Even if it decided that issue wrongly the person aggrieved was not precluded from testing the decision in the county court under section 105. Nothing in the present judgment was in conflict with anything said by Lord Denning MR in R v Westminster (City) London Borough Rent Officer, ex parte Rendall [1973] QB 959 or with the judgment delivered by Park J in R v Brent London Rent Officer, ex parte Ganatra [1976] QB 576. He was of opinion that the application should be dismissed. MELFORD STEVENSON J agreed. LORD WIDGERY CJ said that the new point brought out in this case was that jurisdiction under section 105 was exercisable either before or after consideration of the matter by the tribunal. That had the important consequence that a tribunal was entitled to decide the jurisdiction point if it thought that this was the right course in the particular circumstances and leave it to the aggrieved party to apply under section 105 to the county court if need be. The application should be refused. The application was dismissed, no order being made as to costs.