header-logo header-logo

13 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Four tenants: one claimant

Four tenants have jointly paid a deposit for a residential property and one of them only has brought a claim against the landlord for its return at the end of the tenancy. Must the other three be joined as co-claimants and, if so, what happens if one or more of them has disappeared or is/are unwilling to litigate?

It is open to any one of the tenants to singularly bring the claim and then, if money was recovered in that claim, the lone claimant would be obliged to account to the co-tenants for their shares. The landlord would have a good defence to any claim subsequently brought against them by any of the co-tenants arising out of the same cause of action. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that the court might direct that the co-tenants be given an opportunity to be joined to the claim if it has material before it which suggests that the co-tenants might not receive their due share of the fruits of the litigation, particularly if the lone claimant is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll