Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JENKINS,LORD JUSTICE PARKER,LORD JUSTICE PEARCE |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 1957 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1957] EWCA Civ J1115-1 |
| Docket Number | 1956. A. No. 918. |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 15 November 1957 |
[1957] EWCA Civ J1115-1
Lord Justice Jenkins,
Lord Justice Parker And
Lord Justice Pearce.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Mr LIONEL A. BLUNDELL (instructed by Messrs. Summer & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Plaintiffs).
Mr C.F. FLETCHER-COOKE (instructed by Messrs. Curry & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants),
We need. not trouble you, Mr Fletcher-Cooke, In this case, the appellants (plaintiffs in the action) are a company called Addiscombe Garden Estates Limited, and Mr Alan Percy Smith, We are told that for the purposes of this appeal they can do regarded as the owners of the premises known as the Shirley Park Hotel, Corydon, and in particular of certain parts of those premises which, for a considerable time past, have been used for the purposes of a lawn tennis club known as the Shirley Park Lawn Tennis Club. The respondents (defendants in the action) are Mr Crabby, Mr Crake and Mr Fowler, who are the trustees of the Shirley Park Lawn Tennis Club. The appeal is from a Judgment of Mr Justice Hilbery dated 11th April 1957, dismissing the plaintiffs' action, in which they sought to eject the defendants from the premises of the Shirley Park Lawn Tennis Club on the ground that they were more trespassers.
Down to, I think, the year 1950, the Shirley Park Lawn Tennis Club was carried on as a proprietary club by the plaintiffs. In the year 1950, a new arrangement was made under which the club was to be carried on as a members' club; and it appears that on the 31st March 1950 a society was incorporated under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act with the name of Shirley Park Lawn Tennis Club Limited; and from that time onwards, as I understand, the club was in fact carried on as a members' club through the medium of the incorporated body, the organization being, I gather; of the not unusual character under which there is a corporate body bearing the name of the club, and membership of the club is attained through membership of the corporate body. As part of the re-arrangement made in 1950, a document was entered into dated 30th March 1950 between the first plaintiff of the one part, and the trustees of the Shirley Park Lawn Tennis Club of the other part That document was expressed to be a license, and it gave the trustees of the club extensive rights of use and enjoyment of the club premises in the grounds of the hotel. The interest (whatever it was) granted by that
Document came to an end, I gather, in 1953. Mr Blundell referred us to some of its provisions as casting light on the effect of the document to which I am now about to refer, but for my part I can find really nothing in it which is of any assistance in construing that later document. The document in question was described as a license, and was made on the 12th April 1954, and it was made between Addiseombe Garden Estates Limited, the first plaintiffs, of the one part, and the trustees of the club of the other part. It is vital to the plaintiffs' claim for possession of the premises that they should be able to establish that this document described as a license is in truth a license, as opposed to a tenancy agreement. If it is a more license, then the Plaintiffs' claim to possession must follow, for the rights Granted by it have some time since expired. If, on the other Hand, although described as a license, it has the effect of a Tenancy agreement, then grime facie the plaintiffs must boo faced, Before they can got possession, with the task of compliance with The provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1954. But Mr Blundell has an alternative basis of claim, which is that even Though the document in question created a tenancy as distinct From a mere license, never the less the protection of the Landlord And Tenant Act 1954 can avail the defendants nothing inasmuch As section 23 of the Act, which describes the promises to which? The Act applies, applies only to premises used for business purposes.
By section 23 of the Act, it is provided; "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, this Part of the Act applies to any tenancy whore the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes promises which arc occupied by the tenant and are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by him or for those and other purposes. (2) In this Part of this Act the expression 'business' includes a trade, profession or employment and includes any activity curried on by a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporated. Mr Blundell says that, even if this was a tenancy, it was not a tenancy of premises "occupied for the purposes of a business" within the meaning of those provisions.
As to the first question – that is to say, the question whether the so-called license of the 12th April 1954 in fact amounted to a tenancy agreement under which the premises were let to the trustees – the principles applicable in resolving a question of this sort are, I apprehend, these. It does not necessarily follow that a document described as a license is, merely on that account, to be regarded as amounting only to a license in law. The whole of the document must be looked at; and if, after it has been examined, the right conclusion appears to be that, whatever label may have boon attached to it, it in fact conferred and imposed on the grantee in substance the rights of a tenant, and obligations and on the grantor in substance the rights and obligations of a landlord, then it must boo given the appropriate effect, that is to say, it must boo treated as a tenancy agreement as distinct from a mere licence.
I should next read the document. It is, as I have said, described as a license made the 12th April 1954 between Addiscombe Park Estates Limited, the first plaintiffs, of the one part, and the trustees of the other part, and it reads: "Whereas the grantors inter alai carry on business as hotel proprietors and are the owners of the Shirley Park Hotel (hereinafter called 'the Hotel') and the gardens and pleasure grounds appurtenant thereto including the premises situate and known as the Shirley Park Lawn Tennis Club Whereby it is agreed as follows; (1) The grantors hereby license and authorize the grantees to enter upon use and enjoy the following: (a) the club house with the Dressing rooms and other appurtenances (including the roundsman's sheds) enjoyed therewith in Shirley Park Addisdombe Road Corydon:-. aforesaid (b) the tennis courts (ten hard courts three grass courts and the practice court) as now laid down in Shirley Park Corydon aforesaid (c) the use of all articles of household use and ornament at present in and upon the said club house and also the use of all nets machines tools and equipment in and about the said premises and now used for the equipment and maintenance of the said club house and tennis courts all of which are herein-after referred to as the said chattels and are set forth in Stewart Klutz's inventory of 20th April 1950 (2) This license shall extend for the fixed period of two years from the first day of May 1954 (3) The grantees shall have the] use and enjoyment of the said promises in consideration of their paying to the hotel court fees amounting to £ 37.10s.per month in advance on the first day of each and every month the first payment to be come due and payable on the first day of May 1954
"(4) The grantees jointly and severally agree with the grantors as follows; (1) to make the said monthly payment of court fees to the hotel at the times and in the manner aforesaid (11) to pay for all gas and electricity supplied to and/or consumed in or upon said promises including all standing charges (111) to repair and maintain the said club house with the dressing rooms the said hard and grass tennis courts and the practice court in good tenant able repair and condition (fair wear and tear excepted) and to render the same up upon the expiration or sooner determination of the license in such good tenant able repair and condition and to repair and maintain the said chattels (fair wear and tear excepted) and to replace or renew at the end of the license any of the same as may have become destroyed or rendered defective otherwise than by fair wear and tear
"(iv) to manage and manure the said hard and grass courts in a good and husband like manner so as to keep the same constantly in good service and playable condition (v) not without the. grantors previously written consent to cut down or injure any plants trees bushes or hedges or remove from the said property any soil clay sand or other materials and not to make any excavations there on except for the purpose of maintaining the said hard and grass tennis courts and the practice court in accordance with the agreement and conditions hereinbefore contained (vi) not to creat any building or other structures upon the said property except such as shall boo approved by the grantors
"(vii) to use the 3aid promises as a private lawn tennis club and club house for the convenience of members of the club their guests and their staff only but this clause shall not prevent the club from holding tournaments exhibition matches and social functions on the said premises (viii) not to allow any persons except members guests and servants of the club to use the" Said promises for any purpose but this clause shall not prevent the club inviting or allowing a reasonable number of members of the general public to enter thereon for the purpose of attending "functions specially organized for those interested in the game of lawn tennis (ix) that the will cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shell-Mex and B. P. Ltd v Manchester Garages Ltd
...or a tenancy? This does not depend on the label which is put on it. It depends on the nature of the transaction itself: See Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd. v. Crabbe (1958) 1 Q. B. 513. Broadly speaking, we have to see whether it is a personal privilege given to a person (in which case it is......
-
Ferguson v John Dawson & Partners (Contractors) Ltd
...and my decision is therefore not based on that view. 33 I would apply the principle laid down by Lord Justice Jenkins in Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd. v. Crabbe (1958) 1 Queen's Bench 513. That was a case where the issue was whether the legal relationship between the parties was that of la......
- Walsh v Griffiths-Jones
- Sia Siew Hong and Others v Lim Gim Chian and Another
-
REHABILITATING REPUGNANCY? PRESERVING THAT PIECE OF MEDIEVAL LUMBER.
...nevertheless be a lease if it confers on the grantee a right to exclusive possession: see, eg, Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe [1958] 1 QB 513, 522, 524-5 (Jenkins LJ), 529 (Parker LJ); Radaich v Smith (1959) 101 CLR 209. It is also clear that a document described as a 'lease' will o......