Amicus Horizon Ltd v Mabbot & Anor

For statutory succession, a person claiming through a deceased tenant must show both that they were living with the tenant as their husband or wife and that the dwelling was their only or principal home. Whether a couple were living together as husband and wife is a fact-sensitive value judgment. The court should assess the relationship both subjectively and objectively, considering the parties’ intentions as demonstrated by their conduct and the way the relationship was presented to the outside world. The indicia are not exhaustive. A close, lasting and loving relationship, including substantial domestic involvement and care for a child, may still fall short where the evidence shows that one party deliberately maintained independence and did not accept the other as a life partner.

Miss Judy Mabbott held an assured weekly periodic tenancy of a flat. After her death, Mr Anthony Brand claimed that the tenancy vested in him under section 17 of the Housing Act 1988, asserting that he had lived with her as her husband and occupied the flat as his only or principal home.

On 11 November 2011, HHJ Ellis in the Croydon County Court ordered Mr Brand to give up possession. He found that Mr Brand had not proved either statutory requirement, principally because the parties had not demonstrated mutual lifetime commitment and an openly acknowledged relationship. The appeal concerned whether the judge had applied the correct subjective or objective test and whether his conclusion was perverse.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge had not misdirected himself. His factual conclusions were open to him on the evidence and were not perverse.
2. For section 17 of the Housing Act 1988, the claimant had to establish that immediately before the tenant’s death he was living with her as her husband and was occupying the dwelling as his only or principal home. The first requirement was dispositive, so the court did not determine the second.
3. The question whether parties were living together as husband and wife is a fact-sensitive value judgment. The court must consider the relationship subjectively and objectively. Relevant matters include mutual lifetime commitment, the sharing of domestic and external life, mutual care and support, and whether the relationship was openly and unequivocally presented to the outside world. The list of indicia is not exhaustive because human relationships are complex and varied.
4. The parties’ intentions, as demonstrated by their conduct, are of great importance. Objective evidence of a close and lasting relationship does not necessarily establish the statutory relationship where the evidence shows that one party wished to preserve independence and had not accepted the other wholeheartedly as a life partner. The court therefore upheld the finding that the relationship lacked the mutual commitment and public affirmation characteristic of husband and wife.
5. The court noted, without deciding, that spending more nights at the deceased tenant’s flat than at his mother’s home might have supported a finding that the flat was his principal home. That issue remained unresolved because the failure on the first limb was conclusive.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the possession order was dismissed: [2012] EWCA Civ 895.
• Croydon County Court: HHJ Ellis ordered Mr Brand to give up possession on 11 November 2011 after finding that he had not established the statutory succession requirements.