Rye v Rye

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service. →Go uptown Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort | Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Rye v Rye [1962] AC 496 stands as common law authority — from Lord Denning, no less — for the proposition that a man cannot grant himself a lease, but even more compelling testimony that the caprice of the Englishman is unlimited. For what kind of fellow would get into an argument with himself of sufficient feist as to bring formal legal proceedings against himself let alone, upon losing them, to appeal it all the way to the House of Lords?

A sanguine explanation is no doubt to be found in the 1962 volume of the Appeals Cases and, being penned by one of the great literary figures of the modern legal era, would doubtless repay reading, but — inasmuch as it would displace the mental image I currently have of a man pursuing himself to the highest tribunal in the land to contest his right to occupy his own house, it would still rank as a disappointment, so I do not propose to find out what it is, and would thank anyone who does happen to know, to keep it to themselves.