London Borough of Islington v Green & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 56 (21 January 2005)
Patchwork, as licensee, had no estate in the property and was not authorised by Islington to grant tenancies binding on Islington; upon termination of Patchwork's licence, any tenancy granted by Patchwork ceased and did not bind Islington.
- Citation
- [2005] EWCA Civ 56
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: London Borough of Islington; First Defendant: Tracey Green; Second Defendant/appellant: Gary O'Shea
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 21 January 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Termination of Licence, Agency, Sub Tenancy, Bruton Tenancy, Binding Effect of Tenancies, Authority of Licensee
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
London Borough of Islington
Claimant/respondent
Tracey Green
First Defendant
Gary O'Shea
Second Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a tenancy granted by a licensee binds the freeholder after termination of the licence
- 2 Whether Patchwork Community Housing Association acted as agent for Islington in granting tenancies
- 3 Whether Islington's consent to Patchwork's occupation allowed creation of binding tenancies
Ratio Decidendi
Patchwork, as licensee, had no estate in the property and was not authorised by Islington to grant tenancies binding on Islington; upon termination of Patchwork's licence, any tenancy granted by Patchwork ceased and did not bind Islington.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed
- Detailed assessment of the Appellant's Community Legal Service Funding costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment