Sumeghova v McMahon

For the statutory exclusion of a tenancy under section 3A(2) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, the landlord’s occupation must be assessed when the tenancy begins and when it ends. A home does not cease to be the landlord’s only or principal home merely because the arrangement is intended to be temporary or because he plans to return to another property. Sleeping at the premises is highly important evidence, although it is not invariably decisive. An intended future residence, taking meals or conducting business elsewhere, and registration at another address do not outweigh actual occupation as a home where the evidence supports that conclusion.

Mr McMahon granted Miss Sumeghova a tenancy of a room and shared facilities at No 70 Warren Road in April 1998. He later gave notice that he required the room and evicted her in September 1998. The County Court held that No 72 Warren Road, where Mr McMahon spent substantial time with his children, was his principal residence, so the tenancy was not excluded under the 1977 Act.

The appeal concerned whether Mr McMahon occupied part of No 70 as his only or principal home both when the tenancy was granted and when it ended.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal, in judgments given by Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Chadwick, held that the tenancy was an excluded tenancy.

1. The statutory inquiry required Mr McMahon’s occupation of the shared accommodation as his only or principal home to be assessed at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The temporary nature of the arrangement, and his intention eventually to return to No 72, did not prevent No 70 from being his home at the relevant times.
2. Lord Justice Longmore rejected the Recorder’s reliance on the temporary arrangement. The place where a person sleeps is of very great importance in determining whether it is his only or principal home, although it may not always be decisive.
3. Mr McMahon slept at No 70 and used a second room there as a sitting room. There was no evidence that he slept at No 72 after its conversion into separate flats. His taking meals, conducting business and remaining on the electoral register at No 72 did not displace the conclusion that No 70 was his only or principal home in April and September 1998.
4. Lord Justice Chadwick agreed. The ground-floor flat at No 72 was occupied by Mr McMahon’s children, and his intention to move there after they married did not make it his home before he actually moved in.
5. Paragraphs 2(ii) and (iii) of the order below were set aside. Mr McMahon was to continue paying the outstanding damages of £530 at £20 per week. The costs order below was set aside, with no order for costs in the Court of Appeal save for detailed public-funded assessment.

• Central London County Court: Mr Recorder Hurst held that No 72 Warren Road was Mr McMahon’s principal residence and that the tenancy was not excluded.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed and material parts of the County Court order were set aside: [2002] EWCA Civ 1581.