Commissioner for Social Housing v Lysle

The applicant, the Commissioner for Social Housing, sought a conditional termination and possession order against the respondent, Lysle, on the basis of rent arrears. The dispute came before the tribunal, which was required to determine whether the applicant could rely on an implied tenancy agreement for the purposes of obtaining the order. The tribunal found that the applicant could not rely on an implied tenancy agreement to obtain the order, as the terms of the agreement were not sufficiently certain. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, which was required to determine the issue of whether an implied tenancy agreement could be relied upon to obtain a conditional termination and possession order.

The court found that an implied tenancy agreement could be relied upon to obtain such an order, provided that the terms of the agreement were sufficiently certain. In this case, the court found that the terms of the agreement were not sufficiently certain, as the rent was not fixed and the respondent was not provided with a written agreement. The court further found that the applicant had not established that the respondent had accepted the terms of the agreement. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the tribunal.

The matter is set down for hearing before Senior Member Lennard at 10am on 20 May 2016. The applicant is to provide to the tribunal and to the respondent on or before 27 April 2016 written submissions, which shall include an up-to-date rent schedule, any further submissions on the human rights issues, and any further documents on which they intend to rely at the hearing. The respondent is to provide to the tribunal and to the applicant on or before 12 May 2016 written submissions which shall include a response to the submissions of the applicant, any further submissions on the human rights issues, and any further documents on which she intends to rely at the hearing.