The colliery owned 346 cottages which it kept for occupation by the colliers according to the discretion of the owners, who generall gave preference to married workers. A collier who was married but for whom a cottage could not be found was provided with an additional allowance for rent for alternative accomodation. It was not absolutely necessary for their work that an collier should occupy one of the cottages. Norent was paid, and but for the allowance there was no other variation in their terms. The terms of employment were on one week’s notice and no separate or additional notice was given to terminate the occupation when the employment terminated. Rates were paid by the owners without any accounting with the workers.
Held: The appellant colliers were occupiers of the cottages, and were entitled to have their m=names inserted in the rate book. Where a person who is in fact a servant is in part remunerated for his services by being allowed to occupy a house, then he is prima facie a tenant.
Mellor J said: ‘The residence must be ancillary and necessary to the performance of the servants duties; and unless he is required for that purpose to reside in the house, and not merely as an arbitrary regulation on the part of the master, I do not think he is prevented from occupying as a tenant. Then it appears that the appellants and other workmen are only entitled to occupy the houses during the time of their service at the colliery ; the occupation terminates at the time the service terminates. Still, appellants are tenants, though not tenants for any fixed time. They occupy as tenants at will as long as they reside in the houses by the arrangement between themselves and their masters. Then it appears that if there was no house for a married workmen, he had an allowance for house rent, but if there was a house empty, and the workman would not come into it, he had no allowance. An inference might possibly be drawn from this, that, as he was bound to reside if a house was offered him, upon pain of forfeiting his allowance, he resided in it upon compulsion, and therefore his occupation was that of a servant ; but I cannot assent to this, and in my opinion, those workmen who did reside in the houses resided in the character of tenants.’
Judges:
Mellor J
Citations:
(1875) LR 10 QB 422, 44 LJMC 114, 32 LT 859, 40 JP 228, 23 WR 745
Landlord and Tenant, Rating, Employment
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.536773
