Bruton v. London and Quadrant Housing Trust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust
House of Lords
Date decided:	24 June 1999
Full case name:	Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Citations:	[2000] 1 A.C. 406; [1999] 3 W.L.R. 150; [1999] 3 All E.R. 481; (1999) 31 H.L.R. 902; [1999] L. & T.R. 469; [1999] 2 E.G.L.R. 59; [1999] 30 E.G. 91; [1999] E.G. 90 (C.S.); (1999) 96(28) L.S.G. 26; (1999) 149 N.L.J. 1001; (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 195; [1999] N.P.C. 73; (1999) 78 P. & C.R. D21; Times, June 25, 1999;
Judges sitting:	Lord Slynn of Hadley; Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle; Lord Hoffmann; Lord Hope of Craighead; Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Cases cited:	Street v Mountford [1985] A.C. 809;
Legislation cited:	Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939; Housing Act 1985; Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; Law of Property Act 1925
Case history
Prior actions:	tbc
Subsequent actions:	none
Keywords
Leases; Licenses; Possession of Land

This English Land Law case ([2000] 1 A.C. 406)^[1]examined the rights of a 'tenant' in a situation where the 'Landlord', a charitable housing association had no authority to grant a tenancy, but in which the 'tenant' sought to enforce against the association under Landlord and Tenant Statutes.

1 Facts
2 Judgement
3 Controversy
4 External Links
5 References

[edit] Facts

The Association, a charitable organisation was granted a licence by a Local Authority (LA) in a London Borough to utilise empty housing stock due for redevelopment, for the short term accommodation of homeless people. Mr Bruton was granted a 'licence' to stay in the property. However, Mr Bruton sought to enforce against the Authority under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 S.11, with regard to what he viewed as the Landlord's responsibilities to repair and keep in good condition the property.

[edit] Judgement

It was held by the court, that in accordance with the decision in Street v Mountford, Mr Bruton had in fact obtained exclusive possession for a term in exchange for consideration, and that there was a tenancy agreement in place.

There was discussion relating to the LA, who would have been unable to grant a tenancy as it would have been acting Ultra Vires, and it was argued that the Association in turn could not in law provide a tenancy either. This issue was dealt with in subsequent cases in that the agreement was exclusively between the tenant and the Association, and the LA was not party to the contractual tenancy.

Although the court accepted that the LA could not permit the granting of a tenancy, they held nevertheless that the relationship between Bruton and the Association was on the facts, that of landlord and tenant.

[edit] Controversy

Some confusion arose out of the decision in Bruton. Traditionally it has been held that an Estate interest can only arise out of another interest. A licence is not an estate interest, and provides essentially only access to another's estate. However, the implication of the Bruton case "controversially confirms the existence in English Law of the phenomenon of the contractual or non-proprietary lease"^[2].

It has been suggested by some commentators however, that Bruton was driven by policy as established in Street and Mountford, that individuals enjoying exclusive possession should be protected^[3]. Others have commented that the decision has led to a large amount of housing stock, which might otherwise have been used for the temporary accommodation of the homeless and vulnerable, being left empty and unused.