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 a right to exclusive possession of any part of the property on Mr Khoo; the arrangement was a licence, not a tenancy, and there was no sham or pretence in the contractual terms or their operation.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2296
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 Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Vs Licence, Exclusive Possession, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Property Guardianship
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Tenancy Vs Licence Exclusive Possession Assured Shorthold Tenancy Property Guardianship

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 Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between CGML and Mr Khoo created a tenancy or a licence
  2. 2 Whether Mr Khoo had a right to exclusive possession of any part of the property
  3. 3 Whether the agreement or any of its terms were a sham or pretence

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement did not confer a right to exclusive possession of any part of the property on Mr Khoo; the arrangement was a licence, not a tenancy, and there was no sham or pretence in the contractual terms or their operation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order in favour of CGML stands
  • Mr Khoo not entitled to remain in occupation as a tenant