Croydon LBC granted a flexible tenancy to Ms Kalonga. During the fixed term of the tenancy Croydon instituted a possession claim against Ms Kalonga in the County Court. Because of its general importance the question how to determine a flexible tenancy during its fixed term was transferred to the High Court.
By judgment handed down on 2 June 2020, a note of which is here, Tipples J held that it was necessary to have a forfeiture clause in order to determine a flexible tenancy during its fixed term, that Croydon’s standard terms and conditions of tenancy did not contain such a clause, and that a tenancy that contained such a clause was susceptible to determination through the “normal” route. Croydon’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was expedited because of the general importance of the issue.
By judgment handed down on 27 January 2021, a note of which is here, Arnold LJ (with whom King and Asplin LJJ agreed) upheld the finding – by a different avenue – that it was necessary to have a forfeiture clause, and overturned the finding that a tenancy with such a forfeiture clause could be determined through the normal route. The consequences are that tenancies without a forfeiture clause cannot be determined by the landlord before their natural expiry, and those with such a clause can only be determined through the statutory forfeiture-like route.
On 19 April 2021, Lords Briggs, Leggatt, and Stephens JJSC granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, again recognising the general importance of the issue.
Kelvin Rutledge QC and Riccardo Calzavara continue to be instructed by Jenny Fraser-Browne on behalf of Croydon.