aslan_murphyCA1989
References: [1989] EWCA Civ 2
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss And Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
Ratio: Occupiers claimed that they had secure tenancies. The owner said that they were mere lodgers. In Murphy (1), the landlord said that the occupier must share possession with other occupiers if required. He now said that he had retained a key and that this contradicted any grant of exclusive posssession.
Held: Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘A landlord may well need a key in order that he may be able to enter quickly in the event of emergency – fire, burst pipes or whatever. He may need a key to enable him or those authorised by him to read meters or to do repairs which are his responsibility. None of these underlying reasons would of themselves indicate that the true bargain between the parties was such that the occupier was in law a lodger. On the other hand, if the true bargain is that the owner will provide genuine services which can be provided only by having keys, such as frequent cleaning, daily bed-making, the provision of clean linen at regular intervals and the like, there are materials from which it is possible to infer that the occupier is a lodger rather than a tenant. But the inference arises not from the provisions as to keys but from the reason why those provisions formed part of the bargain. ‘
This case cites:
- Cited – Street v Mountford HL ([1985] 1 EGLR 128, [1985] 2 All ER 289, [1985] 2 WLR 877, [1985] AC 809, [1985] UKHL 4, Bailii)
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . . - Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL ([1988] 1 EGLR 36, [1990] 1 AC 417, [1988] 3 WLR 1205, Bailii, [1988] UKHL 8, [1988] 3 All ER 1058)
In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . . - Cited – Antoniades v Villiers and Another CA ([1988] 3 WLR 139, (1988) 20 HLR 439, Bailii, [1988] EWCA Civ 3, [1988] 2 All ER 309, (1988) 56 P and CR 334, [1988] EGCS 33)
The court considered whether a license agreement was a sham and that a tenancy had been created. Bingham LJ said: ‘Where a written agreement is not held to be a sham, the task of the court, as with any other agreement, is to construe it and give . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 01 July 2019
Ref: 245293
The post Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2); Duke v Wynne: CA 27 Jun 1989 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.