Crane v Morris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Civ J0525-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 25 May 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Civ J0525-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From his Honour Judge Burrell. Q. C. Bridgnorth County Court
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Russell
Mr. Peter Crane (instructed by Messrs Sharps Pritchard & Co., Agents for Messrs Woolley & Co., Bridgnorth) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
M Kenneth Bagnall (instructed by Messrs Pitt & Cooksey, Bridgnorth) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
THE MASTER OF THE ROILS: In this case MR. Crane, a farmer in Shropshire, had a farm of 160 acres. He got planning permission in 1963 to put up a dwelling house for a form worker. His eon and daughter were helping him on the farm and he wanted this house for an extra man. He put up the house. He got the extra man. He was MR. Morris. MR. Morris started his work in April 1964. He was paid the ordinary agricultural worker's wages. He paid half the insurance stamps and he got his house free. But five months later, in September 1964, he determined to leave because he had got a job in a carpet factory. So he left the farmer's employment. When he told the farmer he was going to leave, ha asked the farmer: "What about the house?". The farmer said he would give him up to the end of September. But MR. Morris did not leave: he stayed there. The farmer thereupon brought an action in the County Court for possession. He also made a claim on account of the rates he had to pay on the house. The Judge refused possession altogether. He held that this was a service tenancy. He said that the man was not actually required to live in the house for the purpose of his work. It was merely for his convenience. He could have done his work even if he had lived some distance from the place and rode there by bicycle every day. Having held there was a service tenancy, the Judge held by virtue of the various statutory provisions that he could not give possession.
We have been into the law once more on this matter. At one time it was said (as the Judge said here) that, for there to be a service occupation and not a tenancy, the servant must be required to occupy the house in order to perform his duties, as distinct from being permitted to occupy it. It was also said that the difference between a licence and a tenancy was that, on a tenancy, the occupier had exclusive possession, but on a licence, he had not exclusive possession. We have got long past those days. It is now perfectly well settled that a man may be a licensee (and no tenant) even though he has exclusive possession,see Errington v. Errington, 1952, 1 Queen's Bench at p. 297. And a servant nay be a licensee (and no tenant) even though he is not required to live in the house but only permitted to do so for the convenience of his work, see Torbett v. Faulkner. 1952, 2 Times Law Reports at p. 660. In this particular case I have no doubt whatever that MR. Morris was not a tenant. He was a licensee in the house, with permission to stay there rent free, so long as he remained in the employment of the farmer. Once he ceased to be in that employment, he could be turned out, being given, of course, a reasonable time to go. It is not necessary to give a licensee notice to quit, any more than it is a tenant at will. A demand is sufficient: and a writ claiming possession is itself a sufficient demand, see Martinali v. Ramuz, 1953, 1 Weekly law Reports, p. 1196.
Seeing that MR. Morris was not a tenant, he is not entitled to the protection of the Rent Acts. MR. Bagnall referred us to Section 16 of the Rent Act, 1957, which says that: "No notice by a landlord or a tenant to quit any premises let (whether before or after the commencement of the Act) was a dwelling shall be valid unless it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect". That section only applies to tenancies where a notice to quit is necessary. It does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Husbands and Another v Caesar and Others
-
Banjo v Brent London Borough Council
...let as a dwelling does not apply to a tenancy at will." If further authority is needed, it is found in the decision of this Court in Crane v Morris [1965] 1 WLR 1104, 1108C, 1109F. 33 That conclusion is a sufficient answer to the tenant's claim to security of tenure and protection from evic......
-
David Farquharson and Nicola Farquharson v Everglades Farms Ltd
...whether or not in breach of contract, the right to occupy the accommodation, provided by the employer, is also terminated. 9 In Crane v Morris [1965] 3 All ER 77, the English Court of Appeal (by majority) arrived at a similar conclusion. Lord Denning, at page 79 A of the report of that cas......
-
Husbands et Al v Caesar et Al
...tenancies were not determined by any notice to quit at all (See also Law of Real Property 5th Ed. by Sir Robert Megany & HWR Wade, & Crane v. Morris [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1104). 52 In this case whether we apply the “public policy test” or “the public conscience test” it would not be improper for ......