Kay and others v Lambeth LBC and London and Quadrant Housing Trust
Publication details: 2004Subject(s):- HOUSING ACT 1985 PART IV
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8(2)
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
- HOUSING ACT 1985 S79
- BRUTON V LONDON AND QUADRANT HOUSING TRUST
- SECURE TENANCIES
- HOUSING ACT 1985 S82
- HOUSING ACT 1985 S80
- HOUSING ACT 1985 S81
- CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
- KAY AND OTHERS V LAMBETH LBC AND ANOTHER
- LICENCE AGREEMENTS
- BARRETT V MORGAN
- MCLELLAN V BRACKNELL FOREST BC AND ANOTHER
- WEDNESBURY PRINCIPLES
- PROPORTIONALITY
- HARROW LBC V QAZI
- LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS68045 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 126950-1001 | |
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 126950-2001 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 926, 20 July 2004. Appellant tenants (K) had possession of residential properties under a licence (later terminated and replaced by individual head leases with break clauses), granted to the second respondent housing trust (LO) by the first respondent local authority (LA). LA sort to terminate the leases proceeding against all but one of K for possession in "Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust" ((HL), Abs60987). The judge found that the tenants had no security of tenure under the Housing Act 1985 Part IV. K contended that the judge had misconstrued the licence agreement: they were secure tenants of LA; Part IV of the Act was the only way that a landlord could terminate a tenancy to which it applied; and K had become direct tenants of LA after licence termination and before the granting of head leases. "Held": appeals dismissed. The judge was correct to construe the licence agreement as declaratory of the existing arrangement between the parties, in which there was no relationship of principal and agent between LA and LO and also correct in his construction of ss79-82 of the 1985 Act relating to security of tenure. There was no basis for applying the surrender exception by analogy to the termination of the lease. The first appellant's human rights defence against possession invoking Art 8 and Protocol 1 of Art 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was also dismissed. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.