Street v Mountford
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1985 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 1985 |
Licence or Tenancy - Exclusive occupation - Furnished accommodation - Occupier signing purported licence containing declaration that no tenancy created - Whether licence or tenancy
By an agreement dated 7 March 1983 S granted M. the right to occupy two rooms for £37 per week subject to termination by 14 days' notice and subject to conditions set forth in the agreement, which was entitled “licence agreement” and which contained a declaration signed by M. to the effect that she understood that the agreement did not give her a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. M. and her husband then moved into the rooms, of which they had exclusive occupation. In August 1983 S sought an order in the county court declaring whether the occupancy under the agreement was a licence or a protected tenancy. The recorder held that it was a tenancy. On appeal by S the Court of Appeal declared that M. occupied the rooms under a licence.
On appeal by M:—
Held, allowing the appeal, that where residential accommodation had been granted for a term at a rent with exclusive possession, the grantor providing neither attendance nor services, the legal consequence was the creation of a tenancy; and that, accordingly, on its true construction, the agreement between S and M, notwithstanding the use of the word “licence,” had the effect of creating a tenancy (post, pp. 883D–G, 891A–B, E–F, 892A–B).
Per curiam. Henceforth courts dealing with such cases will, save in exceptional cases, only be concerned to inquire whether as a result of an agreement relating to residential accommodation the occupier is a lodger or a tenant (post, p. 892B).
The following cases are referred to in the opinion of Lord Templeman:
Abbeyfield (Harpenden) Society Ltd. v. Woods [
Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd. v. Crabbe [
Aldrington Garages Ltd. v. Fielder (
Allen v. Liverpool Overseers (
Booker v. Palmer [
Cobb v. Lane [
Errington v. Errington and Woods [
Facchini v. Bryson [
Glenwood Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Phillips [
Heslop v. Burns [
Issac v. Hotel de Paris Ltd. [
Marchant v. Charters [
Marcroft Wagons Ltd. v. Smith [
Mayhew v. Suttle (
Murray Bull & Co. Ltd. v. Murray [
Radaich v. Smith (
Shell-Mex and BP Ltd. v. Manchester Garages Ltd. [
Smith v. Seghill Overseers (
Somma v. Hazlehurst [
Sturolson & Co. Ltd. v. Weniz (
Taylor v. Caldwell (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Bahamas International Trust Co. Ltd. v. Threadgold [
Demuren v. Seal Estates Ltd. (
Matchams Park (Holdings) Ltd. v. Domett (
O'Malley v. Seymour (
Torbett v. Faulkner [
Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council [
Wang v. Wei (
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal.
This was an appeal by the appellant, Wendy Mountford, by leave of the House of Lords from the order of the Court of Appeal (Slade and Griffiths L.JJ.) on 18 April 1984 that by an agreement dated 7 March 1983 the respondent, Roger Theodore Crispin Street, had granted a licence to occupy rooms at 5, St Clements Gardens, Boscombe to the appellant and not a tenancy, as held by Mr Recorder Rolf in the Bournemouth County Court on 21 September 1983.
The facts are stated in the opinion of Lord Templeman.
John Hicks Q.C. and Claudia Ackner for the appellant.
William Goodhart Q.C. and Peter Cowell for the respondent.
Their Lordships took time for consideration.
2 May. LORD SCARMAN. Mr Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal with costs here and below.
LORD KEITH OF KINKEL. My Lords, for the reasons given in the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman, with which I agree, I too would allow the appeal.
LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH. My Lords, for the reasons given in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman, with which I agree, I would allow this appeal.
LORD BRIGHTMAN. My Lords, I agree that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Templeman.
LORD TEMPLEMAN. My Lords, by an agreement dated 7 March 1983, the respondent Mr Street granted the appellant Mrs Mountford the right to occupy the furnished rooms numbers 5 and 6 at 5, St Clements Gardens, Boscombe, from 7 March 1983 for £37 per week, subject to termination by 14 days' written notice and subject to the conditions set forth in the agreement. The question raised by this appeal is whether the agreement created a tenancy or a licence.
A tenancy is a term of years absolute. This expression, by section 205(1)(xxvii) of the
A licence in connection with land while entitling the licensee to use the land for the purposes authorised by the licence does not create an estate in the land. If the agreement dated 7 March 1983 created a licence for Mrs Mountford to occupy the premises, she did not acquire any estate in the land. If the agreement is a licence then Mrs Mountford's right of occupation is not protected by the Rent Acts. Hence the practical importance of distinguishing between a tenancy and a licence.
In the course of argument, nearly every clause of the agreement dated 7 March 1983 was relied upon by the appellant as indicating a lease and by the respondent as indicating a licence. The agreement, in full, was in these terms:
“I Mrs Wendy Mountford agree to take from the owner Roger Street the single furnished room number 5 and 6 at 5, St Clements Gardens, Boscombe, Bournemouth, commencing 7 March 1983 at a licence fee of £37 per week.
“I understand that the right to occupy the above room is conditional on the strict observance of the following rules:
“1. No paraffin stoves, or other than the supplied form of heating is allowed in the room.
“2. No one but the above-named person may occupy or sleep in the room without prior permission, and this personal licence is not assignable.
“3. The owner (or his agent) has the right at all times to enter the room to inspect its condition, read and collect money from meters, carry out maintenance works, install or replace furniture or for any other reasonable purpose.
“4. All rooms must be kept in a clean and tidy condition.
“5. All damage and breakages must be paid for or replaced at once. An initial deposit equivalent to 2 weeks' licence fee will be refunded on termination of the licence subject to deduction for all damage or other breakages or arrears of licence fee, or retention towards the cost of any necessary possession proceedings.
“6. No nuisance or annoyance to be caused to the other occupiers. In particular, all music played after midnight to be kept low so as not to disturb occupiers of other rooms.
“7. No children or pets allowed under any circumstances whatsoever.
“8. Prompt payment of the licence fee must be made every Monday in advance without fail.
“9. If the licence fee or any part of it shall be seven days in arrear or if the occupier shall be in breach of any of the other terms of this agreement or if (except by arrangement) the room is left vacant or unoccupied, the owner may re-enter the room and this licence shall them immediately be terminated (without prejudice to all other rights and remedies of the owner).
“10. This licence may be terminated by 14 days' written notice given to the occupier at any time by the owner or his agent, or by the same notice by the occupier to the owner or his agent.
“Occupier's signature
“Owner/agent's signature
“Date 7 March 1983
“I understand and accept that a licence in the above form does not and is not intended to give me a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts.
“Occupier's signature.”
On 12 August 1983 on Mrs Mountford's application a fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilton v Plustitle Ltd
...sham devices and artificial transactions whose only object is to disguise the grant of a tenancy and to evade the Rent Acts: see Street v.Mountford (1985) A.C. 809 at 825H. He went on to say that the court has to be especially wary and especially careful to see that things like premiums are......
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
-
Gisborne v Burton
...aspect of sham which is exemplified by the case of Somma v. Hazelhurst [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1014 as interpreted by Lord Templeman in Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 at 825, where the actual decision of this court in Somma v. Hazelhurst was disapproved. In Somma v. Hazelhurst a landlord, bein......
-
Family Housing Association v Jones
...1985 Act. 17I now turn to the specific issues which arise on this appeal. 18 Licence or Tenancy 19The decision of the House of Lords in Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809 represented a sea-change in the law on this subject. Although the difference between a licence and a tenancy had been l......
-
Federal Court: Management Body Can Stop Short-term Rentals
...referred to various cases that considered the distinction between a tenancy and a licence. One of these cases was Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 where was held that the fact that the occupant enjoyed exclusive possession of the premises was sufficient to prove the existence of a tenancy u......
-
Table of Cases
...LJ Ex 31, ExCh 50 Stokes v Mixconcrete (Holdings) Ltd (1978) 38 P & CR 488, [1978] 12 WLUK 36, CA 190 Street v Mountford [1985] UKHL 4, [1985] AC 809, [1985] 2 WLR 877, [1985] 2 All ER 289, HL 236 Stretch v UK (44277/48) (2004) 38 EHRR 12, [2004] BLGR 401, [2004] 1 EGLR 11, ECtHR 112 Sussex......
-
Table of Cases
...(4th) 735, 64 BCLR (2d) 366 (SC) ............................................................................... 226 Street v Mountford, [1985] AC 809 (HL) ............................................................. 43 Strong v Bird (1874), LR 18 Eq 315..........................................
-
Management and Enforcement
...115 111 Messager v. British Broadcasting Co. , [1928] 1 K.B. 660 (C.A.), aff’d, [1929] A.C. 151 (H.L.); similarly Street v. Mountford , [1985] A.C. 809 at 827 (H.L.) (“licence” of realty held to be tenancy). 112 Withers , above note 25. 113 JHP Ltd. v. BBC World Wide Ltd. , [2008] EWHC 757 ......
-
Title to Land
...should be granted exclusive possession at a rent for a term with a corresponding interest in the land which created a tenancy.” 39 39 [1985] AC 809 at 821 (HL). THE L AW OF PROPERTY 44 A tenant can have possession even if their use of the space is restricted by the terms of the lease. In ma......