Appah v Parncliffe Investments Ltd

[1964] 1 All ER 838

Between: Appah
And: Parncliffe Investments Ltd

Court:
Court of Appeal

Judges: Harman LJ
Pearson LJ
Davies LJ

Subject References:
Licence
Licence to occupy premises
Furnished room
Separate rooms provided in house formerly a hotel, for daily or weekly charges
Terms including daily cleaning of room, but no meals
Use of bathroom, etc in common with others
Whether occupant of room a tenant or a licensee
Door of room having mortice lock and insecure Yale lock
Failure of proprietor to provide occupant with key to mortice lock
Occupant's room broken into and her goods stolen
Whether proprietor negligent

Case References:
Allan v Liverpool Overseers, Inman v West Derby Union Assessment Committee and Kirkdale Overseers - (1874), LR 9 QB 180; 43 LJMC 69; 30 LT 93; 38 JP 261; 30 Digest (Repl) 532, 1694

Hearing date: 7 February 1964
Judgment date: 10 February 1964


In a building which had been, and was still described on the outside as, a hotel, the defendants carried on the business of providing rooms for residential occupation at 15s a day or £5 a week. The house was divided into seventeen rooms. Each room had its own Yale lock and key, a gas ring and a gas meter, but no bath or WC, these offices being provided for use in common by occupants of rooms. No meals were provided, but the charges covered certain services in the individual rooms, viz, daily cleaning and making of beds, and the weekly supply of fresh linen, and communal services such as electricity and cleaning of the staircase and parts of the building used in common. The defendants reserved to themselves a general right of entry of rooms, and entered once a month to clear the coin-box of the gas meter. There were notices stating that visitors must leave by 10.30 pm, and beside the front door to the building was a notice reading "Keep this door shut". No notice was required when an occupant wished to quit his room if the charges were not in arrear. The terms contained no provisions about subletting, assignment or user of the rooms. In March or April, 1962, following a theft from the room which the plaintiff subsequently occupied, the Yale lock was found to be defective, owing to a gap between the door and the door jamb, and the then occupant fitted two keys to the mortice lock in the door; he handed the keys to the defendants on his departure. On 25 September the plaintiff went into the room on a weekly basis; she was given the Yale key, though the Yale lock had not been rendered secure, but she was not given a key to the mortice lock. On 10 October the plaintiff's room was broken into and all her belongings were stolen. In an action by the plaintiff claiming damages against the defendants for negligence, it was common ground that, if the plaintiff were a tenant of the room, the defendants were under no obligation to exercise care in relation to her property, but that, if her status were that of a licensee for reward, they were under an obligation to use reasonable care to see that she suffered no loss.

Held - On the facts the plaintiff was a licensee for reward, not a tenant, having regard particularly to the factors

(a)
that she had been offered a daily rate,
(b)
that the defendants reserved right to enter the room, so that she had not exclusive possession of it,
(c)
the notice requiring visitors to be out by 10.30 pm and
(d)
that no notice for quitting was required (see p 842, letter i, post);

and the defendants were in breach of their admitted duty to take reasonable care to see that the plaintiff did not suffer loss, because they had failed to provide her with a key to the mortice lock and that failure was a probable cause of her loss.

Dictum of Blackburn J in Allan v Liverpool Overseers ((1874), LR 9 QB 180 at pp 191, 192) considered.

Appeal allowed.

Notes

In view of the defendants' admission of a duty to take reasonable care, if the plaintiff were a licensee, it was not necessary to consider the application of the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957, or to express the duty in terms of the common duty of care enacted by s 2(1) of that Act (see 37 Halsbury's Statutes (2nd Edn) 834).

As to whether a lodger is a tenant of a licensee, see 23 Halsbury's Laws (3rd Edn) 433, para 1028; and for cases on the subject, see 30 Digest (Repl) 545-547, 1788-1808.

Appeal

This was an appeal by the plaintiff, Mercy Oforiwa Appah, against a judgment of His Honour Judge Howard, given at West London County Court on 29 July 1963, dismissing her action against Parncliffe Investments Ltd, for damages for negligence. The action arose out of the theft of the plaintiff's belongings from a residential room hired by the plaintiff in a house, formerly a hotel, owned by the defendants. Counsel for the appellant was not called on to reply.