Rye v Rye
Rye v Rye [1962] AC 496 stands as common law authority — from Lord Denning, no less — for the proposition that “one cannot grant oneself a lease”, but is even more compelling testimony to the unlimited caprice of the English litigant.
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
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? This is a feat of Haddockian proportions.
There is a certain kind of fellow who could start a fight in an empty building, as we all know. But when he is fighting about the ontological essence of his claim to be in that building, that is a whole other thing.
There is, no doubt, a sanguine explanation to be found in the 1962 volume of the Appeals Cases and being, as it was, penned by a giant of modern jurisprudence and a man of no small literary talent, doubtless it would repay reading, but — inasmuch as it would displace the 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 that explanation is, and would thank anyone who does happen to know, to keep it to themselves.
For now, rest assured: you cannot grant yourself a lease.
See also
- Albert Haddock (he of the negotiable cow)
- Counterparts
- Inter-affiliate ISDA negotiation