Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo

Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo

The agreement did not confer a right to exclusive possession of any part of the property and was not a tenancy. The terms and context of the agreement, including its operation as part of a property guardian scheme, supported its construction as a licence. No sham or pretence was established.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Camelot Guardian Management Limited; Defendant/appellant: Heiko Khoo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
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 4 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

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 was a sham or pretence

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement did not confer a right to exclusive possession of any part of the property and was not a tenancy. The terms and context of the agreement, including its operation as part of a property guardian scheme, supported its construction as a licence. No sham or pretence was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Order for possession stands.