Fox v Dalby: 1874

A militia sergeant occupied a house built expressly for accommodation of persons looking after the stores and which had been assigned to him by his commanding officer.
Held: The sergeant did not occupy the house as a tenant. Brett J said: ‘where a person situate like the respondent is permitted . . to occupy premises by way of reward for his services, or as part payment, the occupation is that of tenant; but that, where he is required to occupy them for the better performance of his duties, though his residence there is not necessary for that purpose, or, if his residence there be necessary for the performance of his duties though not specifically required, his occupation is not that of tenant’


Brett J, Lord Coleridge CJ


(1874) LR 10 CP 285


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWragg and others v Surrey County Council CA 1-Feb-2008
The Council appealed against declarations given that the respondent tenants (wildlife rangers) were entitled to purchase the freehold of their homes under right-to-buy. The Council said that the tenancies were occupied in connection with their . .
AppliedGlasgow Corporation v Johnstone and Others (orse Johnstons) HL 1965
A house lived in by a church officer was occupied for rating purposes by the church’s congregational board which employed him, and so was not liable for full rates. Lord Hodson said: ‘The distinction is usually shortly stated in this way: if the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.536729