Hughes v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of£ Greenwich
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1993) 65 PCR 12-17(3)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: CA 20 May 1992. The respondent was the headmaster at a school maintained by the appellant council as successors to the GLC and ILEA. In 1963 the authority had built a house in the grounds of the school as the headmasters house and the respondent, H, moved in. H`s contract of employment entitled him to free board and lodging but contained no express provision that he occupied the house for the better performance of his duties. In 1989 H commenced proceedings claiming right to buy under Housing Act 1985. The judge found in favour of H. The council appealed. This was dismissed on the grounds that a term requiring H to occupy the house was not to implied in his contract therefore H did not fall within the exception in Schedule 1 of the Act. He was a secure tenant and qualified for the right to buy.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS48228 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 65565-1001 |
CA 20 May 1992. The respondent was the headmaster at a school maintained by the appellant council as successors to the GLC and ILEA. In 1963 the authority had built a house in the grounds of the school as the headmasters house and the respondent, H, moved in. H`s contract of employment entitled him to free board and lodging but contained no express provision that he occupied the house for the better performance of his duties. In 1989 H commenced proceedings claiming right to buy under Housing Act 1985. The judge found in favour of H. The council appealed. This was dismissed on the grounds that a term requiring H to occupy the house was not to implied in his contract therefore H did not fall within the exception in Schedule 1 of the Act. He was a secure tenant and qualified for the right to buy.