References: [2007] EWHC 546 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: MannJ
Ratio: His lease had expired, but the defendant continued in occupation under a licence. The parties agreed for new leases on terms fixed, but conditional on the lease being allowed to be contracted out. The tenant now asserted that it occupied the property with security under the 1954 Act.
Held: However unattractive the point made by the defendant, the court had to look to its validity in law. The licence and intended lease were not severable. If the intended lease became impossible that did not leaveth elicence to become a lease: ‘if the licence did not fall to be treated as a stand-alone document, then the vendor/purchaser exception to the prima facie Street v. Mountford position would obtain. He is right to accept that. I have come to the conclusion that this is plainly a case of a licence being granted in the context of the acquisition of the larger interest and, as such, the nature of the interest granted by Cameron and obtained by Rolls-Royce under the agreement itself and pending the grant of the lease is that of a licence only.’
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
This case cites:
- Cited – Joseph v Joseph CA ([1967] Ch 78)
The words in section 38(1) ‘purports to’ means ‘has the effect that’ so that an agreement to give up possession in two years when the lease would still have six years to run infringed section 38 as it would preclude an application or request for a . . - 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 – National Car Parks Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Trinity Development Company (Banbury) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1686, [2001] 28 EG 144)
The land owner appealed a decision that the claimant was a tenant of its premises. It had granted what was described as a licence to the claimant, but stated explicitly that the claimant’s servants should not in any way impeach the land-owner’s . . - Cited – Essex Plan Ltd v Broadminster ChD ((1988) 56 PandCR 353)
The defendant with the benefit of an option to take a lease was allowed into the premises pursuant to what was described as, and purported to be, a licence. He then claimed a tenancy.
Held: The agreement was indeed a licence. Referring to . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20 July 2019
Ref: 261894
The post Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc: ChD 12 Mar 2007 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.