## Facts

- Mr. Ruddy resided in a council flat under an agreement described as a licence.
- The agreement included terms intended to deny exclusive possession, allowing council access and the possibility of placing others in the property.
- Mr. Ruddy maintained he had exclusive possession due to his sole control of entry and occupation without interference.
- The council asserted the arrangement was a licence, not a tenancy, relying on the written terms.
- The dispute centered on whether Mr. Ruddy's actual occupation amounted to exclusive possession, regardless of the agreement's label.

## Issues

1. Does actual exclusive possession override contractual terms labeling an arrangement a licence in determining the existence of a tenancy?
2. Can social housing providers draft agreements that deny tenancy rights by excluding exclusive possession through written clauses, even if exclusive possession exists in practice?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that actual use of the property takes precedence over labels in the agreement.
- Despite the agreement describing the arrangement as a licence and including terms undermining exclusive possession, Mr. Ruddy was found to hold exclusive possession in practice.
- The council’s reserved rights of access and ability to install others did not defeat the reality of Mr. Ruddy’s exclusive occupation.
- The court ruled that tenancy rights arise where there is exclusive possession, regardless of the agreement's wording.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusive possession is the defining feature distinguishing a tenancy from a licence.
- The factual reality of occupation carries greater legal weight than the terminology or structure of the written agreement.
- Where exclusive possession exists, a lease is likely to be found, conferring greater rights and protections to the occupier, even in social housing contexts.
- Contractual attempts to avoid tenancy status by mere labeling or reserved rights are ineffective if contradicted by practical occupation.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Huwyler v Ruddy reaffirmed that exclusive possession in fact creates a tenancy, notwithstanding any contractual provisions to the contrary. This principle is especially significant in social housing, ensuring that legal status aligns with actual occupation and protecting occupiers’ tenancy rights.

Huwyler v Ruddy (1996) 28 HLR 550 (CA)