## Facts

- Chapman was a long-standing residential tenant of a flat in a multi-unit house owned by Honig.
- In prior litigation involving another tenant’s forced eviction, Chapman witnessed events relevant to that dispute.
- Chapman was subpoenaed and gave evidence against Honig in that earlier case, despite fear of retaliation.
- The day after Chapman testified, Honig served Chapman with a notice to quit terminating Chapman’s periodic tenancy.
- The trial court found the notice was served to punish or victimise Chapman for giving evidence and awarded damages against Honig.
- Honig appealed, arguing the notice was effective because it complied with the legal and contractual requirements for terminating the tenancy.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord’s otherwise valid notice to quit can be held invalid or actionable solely because it was served with a retaliatory motive to punish a tenant for giving evidence in court.
2. Whether retaliation against a subpoenaed witness by serving a notice to quit should be treated as contempt of court or otherwise justify judicial nullification of the notice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord’s appeal (Pearson LJ and Davies LJ).
- The majority held the notice to quit was valid because it complied with the requirements for termination; the landlord’s improper motive did not affect validity.
- The majority reasoned that invalidating one retaliatory notice would be ineffective protection because the landlord could serve another valid notice shortly thereafter.
- Denning MR dissented, concluding the court should protect subpoenaed witnesses from retaliation and treat the conduct as contempt, rendering the notice ineffective.

## Legal Principles

- An otherwise proper notice to quit terminating a periodic tenancy is not invalidated merely because it was served for a vindictive, improper, or retaliatory reason.
- At common law, motive alone does not generally vitiate the exercise of a lawful contractual right to terminate a tenancy by proper notice.
- (Dissent) Retaliation against a subpoenaed witness can justify judicial intervention, including treating the retaliation as contempt and denying effect to the retaliatory notice to protect the administration of justice.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that a landlord’s compliant notice to quit remains effective even when served to punish a tenant for testifying, rejecting liability or invalidity based solely on retaliatory motive; a dissent would have treated such retaliation as contempt and refused to give effect to the notice.


Chapman v. Honig, [1963] 2 Q.B. 502 (C.A.)