Arnold v Mann

The case of *Arnold v Mann* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The claimant, Mrs. Mann, sought to recover possession of certain premises from the defendants, Arnold and Warzecha, who claimed to be assignees of a weekly tenancy. The original lease was granted by Mrs. Mann's predecessor in title, Mrs. Keen, to one James Towers for a term of three years, with a provision that if Towers held over, he would be deemed a weekly tenant.

The central legal issues before the court were whether a valid notice to quit, served on Towers by Mrs. Keen, had effectively terminated his tenancy, and consequently, whether Towers had any assignable interest in the premises at the time he purported to assign his tenancy to the defendants. This involved determining whether, after the expiry of the notice to quit and before the purported assignment, a new tenancy had been created between Towers and Mrs. Keen, or if the old tenancy had been revived.

The High Court, by a majority, held that the trial judge was justified in refusing to infer an intention to create a new tenancy or to revive the old one. The court reasoned that while the correspondence between the parties' solicitors after the notice to quit expired might have used terms suggesting a continuing tenancy, these were merely reflections of the de facto situation and a misuse of legal terminology, rather than evidence of a genuine intention to establish a landlord-tenant relationship. The court distinguished between the waiver of a forfeiture and the waiver of a notice to quit, noting that once a valid notice to quit expires, the tenancy is terminated and cannot be revived by unilateral action; a new tenancy requires a common intention to create one.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court found that Towers, having no assignable tenancy after the notice to quit expired, could not pass any interest to the defendants, Arnold and Warzecha. Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to the protections afforded by the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, and the claimant was entitled to recover possession of the premises through an action of ejectment in the Supreme Court.