Street v Mountford
An occupier who has exclusive possession of residential accommodation for a term at a rent is a tenant, whatever label the parties give the agreement.
Facts
Mr Street granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy two furnished rooms for a weekly payment of £37. The written agreement described itself as a licence, and Mrs Mountford signed a declaration that she understood that it did not give her a tenancy protected by the Rent Acts. She had exclusive possession of the rooms. She later applied to have a fair rent registered, which she could do only if she was a tenant.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Mrs Mountford was a tenant. Lord Templeman said that, where residential accommodation is granted for a term at a rent with exclusive possession, the grantor providing neither attendance nor services, the legal consequence is the creation of a tenancy, unless there are special circumstances such as a service occupancy or an act of friendship or generosity. The parties' label is not decisive, because the court must look at the substance of the agreement, and the manufacture of a five pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer insists that it is a spade. The court should be astute to detect sham devices designed to avoid the Rent Acts.
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
- Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386
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.
