TETT v STATES of JERSEY and RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL [Royal Ct]

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Forrest, Lieut.-Bailiff and Jurats Luce and Ryan):
Judgment Date21 June 1971
Date21 June 1971
ROYAL COURT
(Forrest, Lieut.-Bailiff and Jurats Luce and Ryan):

A. Clyde-Smith for the plaintiff;

P.L.Crill, Attorney General, for the defendant and the third party.

Housingrent controlreference to Rent Control TribunalHousing Committee entitled to refer rents without complaint by or consent of tenants

Housingrent controlreference to Rent Control Tribunalreference of block of flatsinvalidity of reference of rent of one flat not to taint reference of similar flats in same block

FORREST, LIEUT.-BAILIFF: This case comes before the Court for the decision of one question. The Plaintiff asks for a declaration that the whole of the proceedings of the Rent Tribunal of this Island, held on 17th March 1967, relating to a block of flats known Amiti Court, were ultra vires and an order that the entry made in the register of the Rent Tribunal be deleted. On that the Defendants, that is the States of Jersey and the Rent Control Tribunal of the Island, have answered that they admit that the Rent Control Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the rent of Flat 4, Amiti Court, but deny that the assessment of the rents of Flats 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 was ultra vires.

The short history of this matter is this: the Plaintiff is the owner of the block of flats referred to; each flat was let on similar leases varying, in fact, as regards the rental, but in each case including in Clause 8 this Agreement: "It is further agreed between the parties hereto that the Lessor shall not in any way require the Lessee to redeliver the premises hereby let in good order and condition in consideration of the sum of . . ." (in the case of Flat 4) ". . . 39 sterling per annum payable quarterly in advance by the . . ." Lessee (the word "Lessor" appears but that is obviously a typing error). The clause further goes on to say that the Landlord is not to do any interior repairs or decorations.

On 16th August, 1966, the States of Jersey Housing Committee took an assignment of the lease of Flat 4, the actual party to the assignment being described as the Executive Officer of the States of Jersey Housing Committee. That Officer on other occasions is described as the Housing Officer. Having taken that assignment, when the first rent became due the Housing Officer withheld a quarter of the sum payable under Clause 8, having, presumably, considered the matter, and then, after there had in fact been conversations about the matter, wrote a letter on the 13th December, 1966, including these paragraphs:

"As it stands, and ignoring the fact that, as written, it is meaningless and thus invalid, this clause could be regarded as onerous and in fact in some cases could amount to a concealed additional rent. The clause seeks 39 per year, for five years, a total...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Re McMahon
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 7 April 1993
    ...(1965), 114 C.L.R. 63. (17) Taylor v. St. Helier (Constable), 1980 J.J. 29. (18) Tett v. States, 1970 J.J. 1461; further proceedings, 1971 J.J. 1805; on appeal, 1972 J.J. 2249. (19) Tournier v. Nat. Provncl. & Union Bank of England, [1924] 1 K.B. 461; [1923] All E.R. Rep. 550; (1923), 130 L......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT