Hughes and Another v Greenwich London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Templeman,Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Lowry,Lord Browne-Wilkinson,Lord Slynn of Hadley |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] UKHL J1021-3 |
| Date | 21 October 1993 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1993] UKHL J1021-3
Lord Templeman
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Lowry
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Lord Slynn of Hadley
House of Lords
My Lords,
For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry I would dismiss this appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry, I agree with him and for the reasons which he gives I, too, would dismiss this appeal.
My Lords,
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal (Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R., Balcombe L.J. and Sir John Megaw) made on 20 May 1992 and dismissing the appeal of the appellants, as the successors of the Inner London Education Authority, from an order made in the Haywards Heath County Court by His Honour Judge Kennedy, Q.C. on 7 March 1990 declaring that the respondents were entitled by virtue of Part V of the Housing Act 1985 ("the Act") to acquire the freehold of a dwelling house known as "Cedars" and situated in the grounds of Staplefield Place Special Boarding School near Haywards Heath, Sussex.
The question for decision is whether Mr. Hughes was a secure tenant of Cedars and accordingly had a right under sections 79 and 118 of the Act to acquire the freehold of that house or whether, as the appellants contend, he was precluded from doing so by paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act, which provides that a tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the tenant is inter alia an employee of the landlord (as Mr. Hughes was) and his contract of employment requires him to occupy the dwelling-house for the better performance of his duties. Mr. Hughes's contract of employment did not contain any express requirement that he should occupy the dwelling-house or that he should do so for the better performance of his duties, but it is the contention of the appellants that it was an implied term of the contract that he was required to occupy Cedars for the better performance of his duties.
Mr. Hughes was until his retirement on 31 December 1989 the headmaster of Staplefield Place School ("the school"), a special boarding school which originally catered for girls with physical handicaps. Since January 1956 he had been employed by the same employer. London County Council, as a resident teacher in a different school and in July 1958 he was appointed headmaster of the school by his employer, whose Education Officer wrote to him on 30 July as follows:—
"Dear Sir,
I write to inform you that the Council has appointed you headmaster of this school, at a salary of £914.12. a year. You will receive free board, lodging and laundry. The appointment will take effect from 8 September 1958 and is subject to these conditions:—
(1) it is subject to three months' notice on either side expiring at the end of a term, except that four months' notice shall be required in the summer term (for this purpose the spring, summer and autumn terms shall end on 30 April, 31 August, and 31 December, respectively);
(2) the appointment is for full-time service exclusively in the capacity of a teacher. You will be required to give your whole time to the duties of your office and will not be allowed to take any other business or paid employment. Any fees received by you as a witness or in any other capacity shall be paid to the Council.
(3) the appointment will be subject to the Council's standing orders, regulations and other provisions in force from time to time.
If you accept this appointment, will you please sign the form of acceptance overleaf and return it to me. No alteration may be made in the form of acceptance. A copy of this letter is attached for retention by you.
Will you please start work on 8 September 1958.
Yours faithfully,
W.F. Houghton
Education Officer."
Mr. Hughes accepted this offer on 2 August 1958 by signing the form of acceptance endorsed on the letter:—
"I accept the appointment specified overleaf, subject to the terms and conditions stated and to any other terms and conditions which the Council may impose."
(Nothing turns on the rather unusual concluding words of the form of acceptance.)
The school was reorganised to cater additionally for younger children and to take boys as well as girls and on 7 July 1959 the employer renewed Mr. Hughes's appointment at a slightly higher salary on his "existing conditions of service" with effect from 1 January 1960.
To begin with, Mr. and Mrs. Hughes lived in the main school building but, after Mrs. Hughes had become pregnant, the employer at some time in 1959 accommodated them in a house in the school grounds which had once been the gardener's cottage. This house was not entirely suitable, since it was damp, and Mr. Hughes discussed with the employer the possibility of his buying a house in the village which was for sale and living there instead. The Clerk to the school Governors was aware of the unsatisfactory state of the cottage and told Mr. Hughes that the employer was thinking of building a headteacher's house in the school grounds. Improvements were made to the cottage. Then, in June 1961, the employer's education committee resolved "that a home for the headmaster should be built in the school grounds" and a specification was approved for a detached three-bedroom house with garage. The house, known as Cedars, was completed in July 1963 and Mr. and Mrs. Hughes moved in, having in the meantime remained in the cottage. Cedars was about 400 yards from the school building, separately fenced, invisible from the school and down a drive not used by the pupils. It was therefore not within the school curtilage and was not caught by a different exception, namely paragraph 5(1) of schedule 5, to the tenant's right to buy: cf. Dyer v. Dorset County Council [1989] Q.B. 346.
In 1967 the school was reorganised again to take more children with additional educational handicaps and on 28 June 1968 the Inner London Education Authority ("I.L.E.A."), which had become the employer, sent Mr. Hughes a further letter of reappointment. As the Master of the Rolls has observed, this letter, when its offer was accepted, constituted the relevant contract of employment. In fact none of the contracts differed in any material respect. The 1968 letter was signed by I.L.E.A.'s Education Officer. It stated:—
"I am pleased to inform you that the Inner London Education Authority has appointed you to the headship of this [Staplefield Place] school with effect from and including 1 September 1967.
Your appointment will be subject to the conditions set out overleaf. If you are prepared to accept appointment on these conditions will you be good enough to sign the form of acceptance on one copy of this letter and return the complete letter to this office. No alteration may be made in the letter or in the form of acceptance. The second copy of this letter is for you to keep."
(Details of salary were set out)
"In addition you will receive free emoluments of board, lodging and laundry, but excluding garage. The free heating and lighting provided will be limited by the provisions of the Authority's Fuel and Light Scheme (a copy is attached.)"
None of the "conditions set out overleaf" were, or were alleged to be, relevant to the question now in dispute.
On 6 April 1987 Mr. Hughes informed I.L.E.A.'s education officer of his intention to retire some time during 1988, when he would have completed thirty years as headmaster of the school, and also gave warning that, having sought the advice of the National Association of Head Teachers, he intended to take advantage of his statutory rights as a secure tenant and to remain in his house on the school site. The letter concluded:
"Having spent more (sic) of my professional career in the boarding school service of the L.C.C. and I.L.E.A. I am well aware that this could result in difficulties for the Authority which I am anxious to avoid or minimise. To this end I would be prepared to consider moving to suitable alternative off-site accommodation that the Authority might be able to offer. At this present moment, there is one staff house 122 Aspen Walk, Haywards Heath which is unoccupied and although this is not comparable to my present accommodation I would be prepared to consider a transfer there at any time up to the date of my eventual retirement. I draw this fact to your attention at this stage because you may feel it advisable to bear my intentions in mind before this house is re-allocated to any other member of staff. The Principal Houseparent has resigned and will leave the Authority's service on May 9th. The vacant position will be advertised as a resident or non-resident post and the Personnel Department will need to be advised as to whether applicants wishing to be resident should be offered either the bed-sitting room occupied by the present Principal or the house.
I can assure that I have the best interests of the school at heart and it is because I would wish to minimise any difficulties in the future that I am raising the matter at this time. You will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gene B Samuel v Sheron Whinfield
...out the gaps in the contract, based on the circumstances of the contractual relationship. See Hughes v Greenwich London Borough Council [1993] 4 All ER 577 [1993] 4 All ER 577. The terms will be implied where there is a compelling reason, or put another way, when it is essential. 15 The tes......
-
Gwenneth Webster v National Bank of Anguilla Ltd
...the gaps in the contract, based on the circumstances of the contractual relationship. See Hughes v Greenwich London Borough Council [1993] 4 All ER 577 [1993] 4 All ER 577. The terms will be implied where there is a compelling reason, or put another way, when it is essential". 21 Ms. Ruan ......
-
Margaret Rose Nugent and Another (Petitioners) Benfield Greig Group Plc and Others (Respondents) Between Margaret Rose Nugent and Another (Petitioners) Benfield Greig Group Plc and Others (Respondents)
...me to a number of authorities on implied terms generally, such as Chitty (28 ed 1999) Vol 1 paragraph 13–009, Hughes v. Greenwich LBC [1994] 1 AC 170, 177, Liverpool City Council v. Irwin [1977] AC 239, 253E—254A, 254F, 257H—258C, 262A-C, 265C—266D, Scally v. Southern Health Board [1992] 1 ......
-
Air New Zealand Ltd v BP Oil New Zealand Ltd and Others
...capacity before the outage in September 2017. 27 Devonald v Rosser [1906] 2 KB 728 at 744; and Hughes v Grenwich London Borough Council [1994] 1 AC 170 at 28 Westpac New Zealand v Mapp & Associates [2011] NZSC 89, [2011] 3 NZLR 751. 29 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings......
-
The limits of voluntariness in contract.
...(202) See, eg, Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410, 447 (McHugh and Gummow JJ); Hughes v Greenwich London Borough Council [1994] 1 AC 170, 179 (Lord Lowry); Jeannie Paterson, 'Terms Implied in Fact: The Basis for Implication' (1998) 13 Journal of Contract Law 103, (203) Krame......