City Of Westminster v Salama

Whether a new tenancy has been created depends, in the final analysis, on the intentions of both parties. The issue must be assessed on the material before the court and in the context of the parties’ conduct. A rent card, considered against an existing possession order and the surrounding circumstances, does not necessarily provide a seriously tenable basis for arguing that a new tenancy arose. An issue concerning a different property cannot ordinarily establish a real prospect of success in an application relating to the property before the court, although it may be pursued in separate litigation.

The City of Westminster sought possession of property No.97 from Mahmood Salama. Following a possession order, Mr Salama argued that the Council’s issue of a rent card created a new tenancy on 30 July. He also raised a separate dispute concerning property No.86, asserting that he held a sole tenancy while the Council maintained that the tenancy was joint.

The matter came before the Court of Appeal on an application for permission to appeal from the Queen’s Bench Division before Mr Justice Eady. The central questions were whether the rent card created a new tenancy in relation to No.97 and whether the dispute concerning No.86 provided a sufficient basis for permission to appeal.

1. Permission refused. The court held that Mr Salama had no real prospect of success on the argument that a new tenancy of No.97 had been created.
2. The applicable test, identified in Vaughan Armatrading v Sarsah, is ultimately concerned with the intentions of both parties. The rent card issued on 30 July had to be considered against the fact that a possession order had recently been made at the Council’s request. On the material before the court, there was no seriously tenable argument that the card created a new tenancy.
3. The dispute concerning No.86 could not be determined on the permission application. It concerned a different property and raised a factual and legal issue as to whether the tenancy was sole or joint. That issue could be considered in any separate litigation between the parties concerning No.86.
4. Mr Salama suggested that the Council’s conduct concerning No.86 was so unreasonable, or its awareness of that conduct so significant, that it led the Council to create a new tenancy of No.97. The court considered that argument to have so little prospect of success that it could not justify permission to appeal in the present litigation.

The application was refused. There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal from the Queen’s Bench Division, before Mr Justice Eady, was refused.