Westminster City Council v Clarke
A resident of a council hostel for vulnerable homeless men did not have exclusive possession of his room, and so was a licensee.
Facts
Westminster City Council ran a hostel for single homeless men with personality disorders or other vulnerabilities. Mr Clarke, a resident, occupied a room under a licence, which said that he could be required to move to another room or to share his room, and that the council's staff could enter the room at any time. The staff supervised residents and provided support. After complaints about his behaviour, the council sought possession, and Mr Clarke argued that he was a secure tenant.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Mr Clarke was a licensee. Lord Templeman said that, given the purpose of the hostel and the council's need to supervise and control the residents, the terms giving the council the right to move residents and to enter their rooms were genuine and necessary, and were not a sham. Mr Clarke therefore did not have exclusive possession, so he could not be a tenant, and was not a secure tenant under the Housing Act 1985.
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.
