Global 100 Ltd v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835 (03 December 2021)

Global 100 Ltd v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835 (03 December 2021)

The agreement between Global 100 Limited and Ms Laleva, properly construed in light of its terms and the surrounding circumstances, created a licence and not a tenancy. The argument that the agreement was a sham had no real prospect of success. Global 100 Limited had sufficient interest to bring possession proceedings, and Ms Laleva was estopped from denying its title while in possession under the licence. The correct threshold under CPR Part 55.8(2) is whether there is a real prospect of success in defending the claim, not a lower or higher test.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1835
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Global 100 Limited; Defendant/respondent: Maria Laleva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Licences Vs. Tenancies, Estoppel, Summary Judgment Threshold, Property Guardianship, Sham Agreements
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure Possession Proceedings Licences Vs. Tenancies Estoppel Summary Judgment Threshold Property Guardianship +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Global 100 Limited

Claimant/appellant

Maria Laleva

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between Global 100 Limited and Ms Laleva created a licence or a tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was a sham
  3. 3 Whether Global 100 Limited had sufficient interest to bring possession proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between Global 100 Limited and Ms Laleva, properly construed in light of its terms and the surrounding circumstances, created a licence and not a tenancy. The argument that the agreement was a sham had no real prospect of success. Global 100 Limited had sufficient interest to bring possession proceedings, and Ms Laleva was estopped from denying its title while in possession under the licence. The correct threshold under CPR Part 55.8(2) is whether there is a real prospect of success in defending the claim, not a lower or higher test.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of HHJ Luba QC is set aside.
  • Summary judgment for possession in favour of Global 100 Limited is restored.