Henningsen v Nolan

Barry and Brett Henningsen brought proceedings against Mr Nolan, who had occupied premises as a tenant. The Henningsens argued that Mr Nolan had been in occupation as a lessee since 1995 and as a tenant since 30 November 2000. They contended that Mr Nolan was a monthly tenant and that a notice of termination of tenancy served on him on 12 March 2003 was valid. Mr Nolan, on the other hand, argued that he was entitled to a five-year lease commencing from the date of expiration of the original lease. The dispute came before the Magistrate who had to determine whether Mr Nolan was entitled to a five-year lease or if he was merely a monthly tenant.
The court considered the definition of ‘Lessee’ in the lease agreement and concluded that the term referred to the party or parties described on page 1 of the lease as the Lessee, which in this case were the Spilsburys. The court found that Mr Nolan was not the Spilsburys or their assignee and that there was no fresh lease between the plaintiffs and Mr Nolan. The court further held that Mr Nolan was not a monthly tenant but rather held the premises as a tenant on a monthly basis after the expiration of the original lease. The court determined that Mr Nolan was entitled to a five-year lease commencing from 30 November 2000, the date of expiration of the original lease. The court ordered that the Henningsens be restrained from issuing or acting upon the notice of termination until 1 December 2005.