判决理由
The grant of exclusive possession of residential premises for a term at a rent creates a tenancy regardless of how the parties label their agreement. The substance of the arrangement, not its form, determines whether a tenancy exists.
事实
Mr Street granted Mrs Mountford the right to occupy a furnished room at a rent of £37 per week. The written agreement was headed 'licence agreement' and contained a declaration signed by Mrs Mountford that she understood she was not a tenant. Street argued the arrangement was merely a licence.
判决摘要
The House of Lords held that the agreement created a tenancy, not a licence. Lord Templeman held that the hallmarks of a tenancy are exclusive possession for a term at a rent. Where these elements are present, a tenancy is created regardless of the label attached by the parties. The court would look at the substance of the agreement rather than its form to prevent landlords from evading the Rent Acts.
关键引述
"If the agreement satisfied all the requirements of a tenancy, then the agreement produced a tenancy and the parties cannot alter the effect of the agreement by insisting that they only created a licence."
— Lord Templeman
"The manufacture of a five-pronged implement for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade."
— Lord Templeman
后续处理
The leading authority on the distinction between a tenancy and a licence, consistently applied in housing cases.
Applied in AG Securities v Vaughan [1990] and Antoniades v Villiers [1990] regarding sham licence agreements.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help