Image from Google Jackets

Hilton v Plustitle Ltd and Another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 05 EG 94-98(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 3 November 1988. Appeal by R in an action by the landlord (H) against P, a company, and R, in which H claimed possession of a flat occupied by R. R appealed against cc decision in favour of H. H provides flats to let to companies only. Genuine company lets do not attract security of tenure under the Rent Act 1977 s2 . The arrangement between H and R was that H would offer a flat to R provided that the lease was granted to a company. R bought a company (P), "off-the-shelf", for £150 and became a shareholder and director. P was granted a six-month lease of the flat, renewed on one occasion. Following a disagreement over a rent increase, H sought possession on the basis that it was a company let. R defended the claim, contending that the letting was a sham and that the tenancy had been granted to her. Cc upheld H`s claim for possession, rejecting the suggestion of a sham. The cc judge held it was the clear intention of both parties that the flat should be let to a company and not to
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40368 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 23344-1001

CA 3 November 1988. Appeal by R in an action by the landlord (H) against P, a company, and R, in which H claimed possession of a flat occupied by R. R appealed against cc decision in favour of H. H provides flats to let to companies only. Genuine company lets do not attract security of tenure under the Rent Act 1977 s2 . The arrangement between H and R was that H would offer a flat to R provided that the lease was granted to a company. R bought a company (P), "off-the-shelf", for £150 and became a shareholder and director. P was granted a six-month lease of the flat, renewed on one occasion. Following a disagreement over a rent increase, H sought possession on the basis that it was a company let. R defended the claim, contending that the letting was a sham and that the tenancy had been granted to her. Cc upheld H`s claim for possession, rejecting the suggestion of a sham. The cc judge held it was the clear intention of both parties that the flat should be let to a company and not to