A headmaster’s occupation of a house in the school was not ‘for the better performance of his duties’, and so was not a tied house, and so he had the right to buy it. A term could not be implied into his contract to require him to occupy the house.
Citations:
Ind Summary 06-Dec-1993, Gazette 17-Dec-1993, Times 26-Oct-1993
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Hughes and Hughes v Greenwich London Borough Council CA 1992
The applicant was headmaster of a boarding school. The contract of employment did not require him to occupy the house, but a new house was built for the headmaster and he moved into it. It was not necessary for him to occupy the house for his . .
Cited – Luxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper HL 1941
The vendor company had instructed agents to sell properties on its behalf and had agreed to pay commission on completion of the sale. The sale was agreed with a prospective purchaser introduced by the agents. Before the sale was completed, the . .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Cited – Reilly (J M) v Belfast Corporation 1970
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.81517