[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> City Of Westminster v Salama [2001] EWCA Civ 2036 (13 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2036.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 2036

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE EADY)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday, 13th December 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: I started giving judgment in this application for permission to appeal on 5th December, and there indicated why it seemed to me that, with the exception of one point, Mr Salama did not have a real prospect of success in relation to his argument so far as No.97 was concerned. The one point that I wished to reserve for further consideration concerned a rent card which undoubtedly had been issued to him. I was concerned whether the issuing of that rent card on 30th July provided a tenable argument that a tenancy had been created between the Council and him on 30th July.
2. The test in relation to the creation of a new tenancy is set out in the case of Vaughan Armatrading v Sarsah, to which I referred on the previous occasion. In the last analysis it is a test which refers to the intentions of both parties. So far as No.97 is concerned it is clear on all the material before the court that there is not a seriously tenable argument that a new tenancy was created. All this was a short time after Mr Salama had made against him a possession order at the request of Westminster. Thus, the reason why I reserved this case for further argument today is one where, having heard what has been said on behalf of the Council, I am persuaded that that is not a good reason for giving permission. In fairness to Mr Salama that was not his primary reason for appearing here in the first place; it was my idea rather than his. His main complaint really relates to No.86 where he says, and the Council denies, that what existed was a sole tenancy between him and the Council. The Council says no, it was a joint tenancy between the Council on the one side, and Mr Salama and his then partner, on the other.
3. The arguments in relation to that have been advanced by Mr Salama in front of me today, but they are not matters of which I can possibly decide on this application; that is a matter which may be decided in any litigation between Mr Salama and the City of Westminster in relation to No.86, as opposed to the present litigation which is concerned with No.97. The only link between them, I think putting myself into Mr Salama's position, might be an argument to the effect that the Council's behaviour in relation to No.86 was so bad that they acted unreasonably, or alternatively they were conscious of that and that is what led them to create a new tenancy in relation to No.97. But, as it seems to me, that argument has so little prospect of success put that way that it does not provide a reason for giving permission to appeal in the present case. Therefore, although I do see that Mr Salama is in an unfortunate position - I do not say by any means that he will succeed - but I could see there is a possibility for some possible argument in relation to No.86.
4. So far as the present case is concerned permission to appeal is refused.
(Application refused; no order for costs).