## Facts

- The London & Quadrant Housing Trust, a voluntary housing trust, obtained a license from a local authority to use properties, scheduled for redevelopment, as temporary dwellings for homeless people.
- Mr. Bruton entered into a written agreement with the Trust for occupation of such a dwelling, described as a “weekly license.”
- The agreement included a clause requiring Mr. Bruton to vacate the property upon reasonable notice.
- Mr. Bruton contended that the Trust had violated implied terms to maintain the premises in good repair.
- The main issue arose over whether this agreement granted Mr. Bruton a tenancy or a license, affecting his legal rights and remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether the agreement between Mr. Bruton and the London & Quadrant Housing Trust created a tenancy or merely a license.
2. Whether the Trust’s own limited interest (as a licensee of the local authority) prevented it from granting a tenancy.
3. Whether the designation of the agreement as a “license” or the intention of the parties was determinative of its legal effect.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that Mr. Bruton was a tenant, not merely a licensee, because he was granted exclusive possession of the property.
- The court determined that the label “license” and the Trust’s lack of title did not preclude the creation of a tenancy.
- The decisive factor was the grant of exclusive possession for a term at rent, not the Trust’s legal interest or the agreement’s wording.
- The court found the existence of a “Bruton tenancy,” arising solely from the relationship between occupier and grantor, enforceable against the grantor alone.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusive possession is the essence of a tenancy; whether the agreement is called a license or tenancy is not conclusive.
- The ability to grant exclusive possession, not the extent of the grantor’s interest, determines whether a tenancy exists.
- A “Bruton tenancy” can arise even where the grantor does not hold a leasehold or freehold estate.
- Statutory protections for tenants may apply irrespective of the grantor’s title if exclusive possession is granted.

## Conclusion

Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] UKHL 26 clarified that exclusive possession is the key test for a tenancy, not the labels attached by the parties or the nature of the grantor’s title. The decision established that a tenancy can exist even when the landlord does not have a proprietary estate, protecting the rights of occupiers in precarious or temporary accommodation.