Facchini v Bryson
An occupier with exclusive possession is a tenant unless there is something such as a family arrangement, act of friendship or service occupancy which negatives any intention to create a tenancy.
Facts
Mr Facchini employed Mr Bryson as an assistant in his business, and allowed him to occupy a house under an agreement described as a licence, for a weekly payment. The agreement stated that it was not intended to create a tenancy. Mr Bryson occupied the house independently, and his occupation was not necessary for his employment. When the employment ended, Mr Facchini sought possession.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Bryson was a tenant. Denning LJ said that, in all the cases where an occupier has been held to be a licensee, there has been something in the circumstances, such as a family arrangement, an act of friendship or generosity, or such like, to negative any intention to create a tenancy. The occupation was not connected with his employment, and the label used by the parties could not change the true nature of the agreement. Denning LJ's statement was later approved by Lord Templeman in Street v Mountford.
Related cases on leases and licences
- AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990] 1 AC 417
- 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
- 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.
