Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc [2007] EWHC 546 (Ch) (12 March 2007)

Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc [2007] EWHC 546 (Ch) (12 March 2007)

The agreements for lease created only a licence pending the grant of the lease, not a tenancy protected by the 1954 Act, because the occupation was ancillary to the acquisition of a larger interest and not an independent grant of a tenancy. Therefore, Rolls-Royce was not entitled to security of tenure and must specifically perform the agreements by taking the contracted out leases.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 546 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Cameron Limited; Defendant: Rolls-Royce PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Claim for Specific Performance / Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; summary judgment granted.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Leases and Licences, Security of Tenure, Contracted Out Leases
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Specific Performance Leases and Licences Security of Tenure Contracted Out Leases

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cameron Limited

Claimant

Rolls-Royce PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Claim for Specific Performance / Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occupation by Rolls-Royce under the agreements was as a licensee or as a tenant with security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
  2. 2 Whether the agreements for lease created a tenancy protected by the 1954 Act or only a licence pending the grant of the lease
  3. 3 Whether the obligation to take a contracted out lease was void under section 38 of the 1954 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The agreements for lease created only a licence pending the grant of the lease, not a tenancy protected by the 1954 Act, because the occupation was ancillary to the acquisition of a larger interest and not an independent grant of a tenancy. Therefore, Rolls-Royce was not entitled to security of tenure and must specifically perform the agreements by taking the contracted out leases.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; summary judgment granted.

Orders

  • Specific performance of the agreements for lease ordered against Rolls-Royce PLC.