The employee occupied the property under a licence granted by his employer for the better performance of his employment duties. At first he had been taken on as a semi-skilled mechanic, but he was later offered occupation of the employer’s bungalow so that he would be readily available as a coach driver after obtaining a qualification for that purpose. He had been dismissed after the employer discovered that he was in fact disqualified from driving, but he resisted surrender of the property saying that he had a periodic tenancy, and had the protection of the 1977 Act.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. Although the licence was co-terminous with his employment which was periodic, and although he payed andpound;5.00 a week for the occupation through his wage, the licence itself was not a tenancy and was not periodic. Accordingly he was not protected by the notice provisions in section 5 of the 1977 Act.
The fact that the arrangement had come into play only after commencement of the employment made no significant difference.
Woolf LJ said that there must be: ‘a sufficient factual nexus between the commencement of the occupation of the premises and the employment which would benefit from that occupation.’
 1 WLR 1241, Times 23-Apr-1991,  4 All ER 327,  23 HLR 423
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .
Cited – Wragg 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.536728