Aslan v Murphy
Terms requiring an occupier to share a tiny room and to leave it for part of each day were shams, so the occupier was a tenant.
Facts
Mr Murphy occupied a small basement room, about 4 feet 3 inches by 12 feet 6 inches, under an agreement described as a licence. The agreement said that he had no right to use the room between 10.30 am and noon each day, that the owner could introduce another occupier to share with him, and that the owner kept the keys. These terms were never enforced.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Murphy was a tenant. Lord Donaldson MR said that the terms excluding him for part of the day and allowing another occupier to share the tiny room were wholly unrealistic and were shams, designed to disguise the grant of a tenancy. The retention of keys by the owner was not decisive; what mattered was why the owner kept the keys. If it was to provide services or for access in emergencies, that was consistent with a tenancy.
Related cases on leases and licences
- AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417
- Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1
- 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.
