The circumstances giving rise to the creation of tenancies were clarified by the House of Lords today.
Five law lords unanimously allowed an appeal by the occupier of a flat in Lambeth, who had challenged the rights of London & Quadrant Housing Trust.
Gary Bruton was allowed into the flat on a temporary basis pending redevelopment. The question for the courts was whether, in the eyes of the law, he was to be regarded as a tenant or licensee of the property.
Lambeth County Court and the Court of Appeal rejected his claims. The Appeal Court took the view that the trust had not purported to grant a tenancy and there was no inconsistency between the terms of the agreement and the trust’s assertion that it had not granted a tenancy.
Lords Slyn, Jauncey, Hoffman, Hope and Hobhouse have now reversed the earlier decisions.
Lord Slyn said that the agreement between Bruton and the trust was only described as a licence, and as the trust itself only had a licence, that may well have been the intention. However, he said that on the basis of Street v Mountford and Westminster City Council v Clarke [[2] AC 288], it was clear that the agreement gave a right to exclusive possession and prima facie was a tenancy.
Lord Hoffman said: “In my opinion, the trust plainly did purport to grant a tenancy. It entered into an agreement on terms that constituted a tenancy. It may have agreed with Mr Bruton to say that it was not a tenancy. But the parties cannot contract out of the Rent Acts or other landlord and tenant statutes by such devices. Nor, in my view, can they be used by a landlord to avoid being estopped from denying that he entered into the agreement he actually made.”
PLS News 24/06/99
