Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo [2018] EWHC 2296 (QB) (31 July 2018)

Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo [2018] EWHC 2296 (QB) (31 July 2018)

The agreement did not confer exclusive possession of any part of the property on Mr Khoo, and there was no sham or pretence; therefore, the arrangement was a licence and not a tenancy.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2296 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Camelot Guardian Management Limited; Defendant/appellant: Heiko Khoo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order for Possession
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Vs Licence, Exclusive Possession, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Property Guardianship, Sham or Pretence in Contracts
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Tenancy Vs Licence Exclusive Possession Assured Shorthold Tenancy Property Guardianship Sham or Pretence in Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Camelot Guardian Management Limited

Claimant/respondent

Heiko Khoo

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between CGML and Mr Khoo created a tenancy or a licence
  2. 2 Whether the agreement conferred exclusive possession
  3. 3 Whether the agreement or its terms were a sham or pretence

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement did not confer exclusive possession of any part of the property on Mr Khoo, and there was no sham or pretence; therefore, the arrangement was a licence and not a tenancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for possession stands
  • Mr Khoo has no right to remain in the property as a tenant