Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce PLC [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 546 (Ch), 12 March 2007. The claimant (C) applied for summary judgement on a claim for specific performance of two agreements for commercial leases between C as landlord and the defendant (R) as tenant. R subleased commercial premises from C under two separate subleases, each contracted out of the security of tenure provisions. When the subleases expired, pending renewal of the leases, R was given a licence to remain on the same terms as the subleases. R claimed that the purported licence was a protected lease; therefore it was entitled to remain beyond the expiry date of the agreement was entitled to tenancy rights, namely security of tenure. Held: judgement for claimant. The agreement was clearly not intended to grant a tenancy. The licence was a stand alone transaction with a clear, separate purpose.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 142226-2001 |
[2007] EWHC 546 (Ch), 12 March 2007. The claimant (C) applied for summary judgement on a claim for specific performance of two agreements for commercial leases between C as landlord and the defendant (R) as tenant. R subleased commercial premises from C under two separate subleases, each contracted out of the security of tenure provisions. When the subleases expired, pending renewal of the leases, R was given a licence to remain on the same terms as the subleases. R claimed that the purported licence was a protected lease; therefore it was entitled to remain beyond the expiry date of the agreement was entitled to tenancy rights, namely security of tenure. Held: judgement for claimant. The agreement was clearly not intended to grant a tenancy. The licence was a stand alone transaction with a clear, separate purpose.