AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers
Occupiers who signed separate agreements at different times were licensees, but a couple who signed separate agreements for a flat they shared were joint tenants, because the agreements were a sham.
Facts
In AG Securities v Vaughan, four people occupied a large flat with four bedrooms, a lounge and kitchen. Each had signed a separate agreement at a different time and paid a different amount, and when one left, the owner found a replacement. In Antoniades v Villiers, a couple who were living together signed separate but identical agreements to occupy a small flat with one bedroom. Each agreement said that it was a licence, and that the owner could put other people into the flat to share with them, although this was never done.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the occupiers in Vaughan were licensees, because they did not have exclusive possession of the flat jointly. There was no unity of interest, title, time or possession, so they could not be joint tenants. But in Antoniades, the couple were joint tenants. Lord Templeman said that the clause allowing the owner to introduce other occupiers was a sham, because the parties never intended it to be acted on, and the two agreements were interdependent and had to be read together. Together the couple had exclusive possession of the flat.
Related cases on leases and licences
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1
- Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766
- Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 52, [2012] 1 AC 955
- Binions v Evans [1972] Ch 359
- Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406
- Errington v Errington and Woods [1952] 1 KB 290
- Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386
- Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
