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 duties, but it was advantageous. He sought the right to buy the house.
Held: The authority appealed a finding that he was a secure tenant. A term can only be implied that he should occupy a particular house wher this was essential. It could not be implied where occupation would be for the better performance of his duties..
[1992] 65 P and CR 12, [1992] 24 HLR 805 CA
Housing Act 1985 79
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland v Fermanagh Protestant Board of Education CA 1965
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Europhone International Ltd v Frontel Communications Ltd ChD 25-Jul-2001
Although the VAT regime required all commercial enterprises to issue VAT invoices in a timely way, that is not sufficient, of itself, to create an implied term into contracts between businesses, that invoices should be issued in a way which would . .
Appeal from – Hughes and Another v Greenwich London Borough Council HL 26-Oct-1993
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.183483