Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] 2 AC 465

Facts

  • Individuals resided in properties owned by Lambeth London Borough Council.
  • These occupiers were permitted to remain through licenses granted by tenants with secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985.
  • Lambeth Council sought possession of the properties, asserting that the licenses did not create proprietary rights enforceable against the Council as landlord.
  • The occupiers claimed their arrangements constituted tenancies, providing protection from eviction.

Issues

  1. Whether the occupiers' arrangements amounted to tenancies, given the absence or presence of exclusive possession.
  2. Whether licenses granted by tenants could confer proprietary rights against the Council, the landlord.
  3. Whether Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provided the occupiers with additional rights in possession proceedings.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the occupiers were licensees, not tenants, as there was no exclusive possession.
  • Licenses issued by tenants were personal and did not bind the landlord or generate enforceable property rights.
  • The legal nature of occupancy depended on the substance of the agreement, not its terminology or equitable arguments.
  • Reliance on Article 8 ECHR was rejected; the right to respect for one’s home does not create property rights not recognised by domestic law.
  • Precedent from Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 was affirmed, and the decision in Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 was distinguished.

Legal Principles

  • Exclusive possession is the critical criterion for identifying a tenancy; without it, the occupier holds a license.
  • A license is a personal permission lacking proprietary status and cannot override a landlord’s interests or bind successors in title.
  • The intention of the parties is relevant, but legal consequences are determined by the substance of the agreement rather than headings or labels.
  • Article 8 ECHR cannot confer property rights beyond those recognised under national law.
  • Judicial focus remains on established property law principles in resolving possession disputes, with human rights arguments subject to these limits.

Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified the distinction between licenses and tenancies, holding that exclusive possession alone does not make an occupier a tenant. Licenses remain personal and do not create enforceable property rights against landlords, and human rights claims cannot override established domestic property law principles.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal