Chapman v Freeman

[1978] 3 All ER 878

---

(Judgment by: Eveleigh LJ)

Between: Chapman
And: Freeman

Court:

Judges: Lord Denning Mr
Geoffrey Lane LJ

Eveleigh LJ

Subject References:
Landlord and tenant
Business premises
Occupied for business purposes
Business purposes
Cottage let to hotel proprietor to house hotel staff
Occupation by staff convenient for hotel proprietor's business
No evidence that occupation by staff necessary for proprietor's business
Whether hotel proprietor occupying cottage 'for the purposes of a business carried on by him'

Legislative References:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 - s 23(1)

Case References:
Ramsbottom v Snelson - [1948] 1 All ER 201; [1948] 1 KB 473; [1948] LJR 946; 112 JP 160; 46 LGR 139, DC; 31(2) Digest (Reissue) 912, 7554
Bagettes Ltd v G P Estates Co Ltd - [1956] 1 All ER 729; [1956] Ch 290, CA
Hobson v Tulloch - [1898] 1 Ch 424; 67 LJ Ch 205
Lee-Verhulst (Investments) Ltd v Harwood Trust - [1972] 3 All ER 619; [1973] QB 204, CA

Judgment date: 5 May 1978

---

Judgment by:
Eveleigh LJ

I agree. The defendant claims to come within s 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 not by his own personal occupation but through the occupation by his servant. Therefore we must look to see what the servant is doing there. Why is he there? The servant is not occupying for the purpose of the hotel business but simply as a resident. He is not therefore anything to do with the hotel, although his employment at the hotel provides the reason for his being permitted to live there.

I too would allow this appeal.

Appeal allowed. Order for possession.