Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc

Cameron Ltd v Rolls-Royce Plc

The occupation by Rolls-Royce was under a licence ancillary to the agreement for the grant of a lease, not a stand-alone tenancy. The arrangement falls within the vendor/purchaser exception to the Street v. Mountford rule. Therefore, no protected tenancy arose, section 38 is not engaged, and Rolls-Royce is obliged to take the contracted-out leases. Judgment is entered for Cameron for specific performance.

Parties
Claimant: Cameron Limited; Defendant: Rolls-Royce PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/property / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; specific performance ordered.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Agreements for Lease, Security of Tenure, Licences Versus Tenancies, Section 38 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Specific Performance Agreements for Lease Security of Tenure Licences Versus Tenancies Section 38 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cameron Limited

Claimant

Rolls-Royce PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/property / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The occupation by Rolls-Royce was under a licence ancillary to the agreement for the grant of a lease, not a stand-alone tenancy. The arrangement falls within the vendor/purchaser exception to the Street v. Mountford rule. Therefore, no protected tenancy arose, section 38 is not engaged, and Rolls-Royce is obliged to take the contracted-out leases. Judgment is entered for Cameron for specific performance.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; specific performance ordered.

Orders

  • Rolls-Royce to execute the contracted-out leases as per the agreements for lease.