As explained in our note on National Westminster Bank v Jones [2000] EGCS 82, see
Hard on the heels of Neuberger J’s decision in that case (which was not in fact cited) comes Eaton Square Properties Ltd v O’Higgins [2000] EGCS 118, where the Court of Appeal, in a possession case, gave short shrift to a contention that a lease of a house granted to a company was truly intended to be granted to the individual occupier who owned the company. The fact that the lease was so granted “purely for tax reasons” pointed, if anything, to the genuineness of the transaction, since the existence of that purpose was inconsistent with an intention not to create the legal rights and obligations that the parties gave the appearance of creating.
The collapse of the “sham” allegation put paid to the defendant’s claim that he occupied the house as a statutory tenant under the Rent Act 1977.
As explained in our note on National Westminster Bank v Jones [2000] EGCS 82, see PP 2000/65, it is far from easy to persuade a court that a transaction, that was good on its face, was, in fact, a sham transaction and, as such, should be disregarded.
Hard on the heels of Neuberger J’s decision in that case (which was not in fact cited) comes Eaton Square Properties Ltd v O’Higgins [2000] EGCS 118, where the Court of Appeal, in a possession case, gave short shrift to a contention that a lease of a house granted to a company was truly intended to be granted to the individual occupier who owned the company. The fact that the lease was so granted “purely for tax reasons” pointed, if anything, to the genuineness of the transaction, since the existence of that purpose was inconsistent with an intention not to create the legal rights and obligations that the parties gave the appearance of creating.
The collapse of the “sham” allegation put paid to the defendant’s claim that he occupied the house as a statutory tenant under the Rent Act 1977.
