Yeomen's Row Management Limited v Bodentien-Meyrick

Permission for a second appeal should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. A dispute about the proper construction of a tenancy covenant may satisfy that threshold where the issue has significance beyond the particular parties. Granting permission does not indicate a view on the merits.

The applicant landlord, Yeomen's Row Management Limited, owned 44 Yeomen's Row. The respondent, Mrs Karen Meyrick, was the successor to a statutory tenant under a tenancy originally granted in 1958.

The landlord sought access under clause 2.20 of the tenancy agreement to carry out specified repairs or work. The West London County Court held that the covenant, properly construed, permitted work akin to repair only. Pumfrey J dismissed the company's appeal on 18 December 2001. The company applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to bring a second appeal, raising the proper approach to construing the covenant.

1. Permission granted. Under Part 52.13.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, permission for a second appeal requires either an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal.
2. The proposed appeal satisfied that threshold. The construction of clause 2.20 raised an important question concerning provisions in tenancy agreements of this kind. The issue extended beyond the particular dispute between the parties.
3. The covenant required the tenant to permit entry for inventories and for repairs or work to the flat and adjoining premises. The lower courts had concluded that the apparently broad words “or work” were restricted to work akin to repair. That construction was the subject of the proposed appeal.
4. The court had considered the parties’ arguments, including the possible relevance of the approach to contractual construction discussed by the House of Lords in Investors Compensation Scheme Limited v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896. Lord Justice Mummery expressly declined to express a view on the rival arguments, the merits, or their consequences.
5. Permission was therefore granted. The order also provided for a possible application concerning Miss Mainwaring’s rights of audience, a one-day time estimate, and permission for a supplemental skeleton argument.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission granted for a second appeal.
• Pumfrey J: Appeal by the company dismissed on 18 December 2001.
• West London County Court: His Honour Judge Cowell construed the tenancy covenant on 24 July 2001.