Longford & Anor v Longford & Ors

A contractual right to occupy property may confer only a personal right, rather than a tenancy or rights equivalent to those of an agricultural tenant. The construction depends on the language and context of the agreement. Where the right is expressed by reference to the named person’s occupation, it is personal to that person. Such a right is spent when that person permanently leaves the property. No separate notice terminating the right is required.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal by Paul, Samantha and Roger Longford against an order of His Honour Judge Rundell at Walsall County Court requiring possession of Meon View to be given to Timothy and Mervyn Longford.

The County Court had construed clause 5 of an Underlease as giving Roger a personal right to occupy Meon View. It found that Roger had permanently left the property and had no intention of returning. The applicants argued that the clause conferred rights equivalent to those of an agricultural tenant, or alternatively created a licence which had never been terminated.

The central issue was the proper construction and continuing effect of clause 5.

1. Permission refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The County Court’s finding that Roger had permanently left Meon View was not challenged.
2. Clause 5 of the Underlease conferred no more than a personal right of occupation on Roger. The reference to occupation, read in context and alongside the words referring to the property as then occupied by him, indicated personal occupation rather than a proprietary tenancy. The clause created some equivalence between Roger’s position at Meon View and Ronald’s position at The Priory, but that equivalence did not give Roger the rights of an agricultural tenant.
3. The surrounding circumstances did not justify a different construction. The later description of the arrangement as a provision to house Roger supported the conclusion that the right was to use Meon View as his home. The County Court’s findings that the arrangement was temporary and was not intended to create a landlord and tenant relationship were consistent with that construction.
4. Roger’s alternative argument also failed. Because the right was personal, it was spent when he moved out of Meon View permanently. It was therefore unnecessary for any notice to have been served terminating a continuing licence. The application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 February 2002, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. [2002] EWCA Civ 360
2. Walsall County Court: His Honour Judge Rundell ordered the applicants to give possession of Meon View to the claimants on 14 January 2002.
3. On the papers: Permission to appeal was initially refused on 24 January 2002.