AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers

[1988] 3 All ER 1058
[1990] AC 417

---

(Decision by: Lord Ackner) Court:

Judges: Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Templeman

Lord AcknerLord Oliver of Aylmerton
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Judgment date: 10 November 1988

---

Decision by:
Lord Ackner

My Lords, each of these appeals raises essentially the same question: what was the substance and reality of the transaction entered into by the parties?

In the first appeal, each of the respondents commenced his occupation of the flat on different dates, each of their agreements covered different periods and each agreement provided for different payments for that occupation. In such circumstances there could not have been a grant of a joint tenancy to all four respondents. At no stage in the litigation was it suggested that the particular facts justified the conclusion that each respondent had, by virtue of his agreement, exclusive possession and therefore a tenancy of the room which he in fact occupied, together with the right to share the rest of the accommodation in the flat with the other occupants, thereby achieving the protection provided by s 22 of the Rent Act 1977.

Thus, by the simple process of elimination, it is apparent that the substance and reality of the transaction was that each respondent achieved by virtue of his agreement no more than a licence to share the flat and he must therefore give up possession following the lawful termination of that licence.

In the second appeal it is clear, when reality is brought to bear, that the agreements relied on by the respondent created a tenancy of the flat, although he sought vigorously to disguise them as mere licences to occupy the flat.

Accordingly, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friends Lord Templeman and Lord Oliver, I would allow both these appeals.