Brickfield Ltd v Hughes: CA 1988

In considering whether a secure tenancy was lost by the tenant abandoning his residence there, the court set out the applicable principles. Where absence is more prolonged than is to be explained by holiday or ordinary business reasons and is unintermittent, the onus lies on the absent person to establish an intention to return. An inward intention is insufficient; it must be accompanied by some outward sign of the person’s intention. The person must show that there is a real possibility that the intention to return will be fulfilled within a reasonable time, and the person’s case can prevail even though he has another home or residence but the court will look with particular care at two-home cases.


(1988) 20 HLR 108


Housing Act 1985


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSteven We Ping Wall v Sheffield City Council CA 23-Mar-2006
The appellant had been fostered by the deceased, and on her death continued to live in her house held under a secure tenancy of the respondent. The council sought possession, saying that he was not a member of the deceased’s family within section . .
CitedCamden London Borough Council v Goldenberg and Another CA 1-Apr-1996
The appellant had lived for a number of years with his grandmother; had then married; had thereupon moved with his bride for three months into a house owned by friends who were abroad; had, throughout that time, left the bulk of his belongings at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.241563