Cases - Gurton v Parrott and another
Record details
- Name
- Gurton v Parrott and another
- Date
- [1991]
- Citation
- 1 EGLR 98
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Lease renewal
- Summary
-
In the first case, the letting was of a residential flat. The tenant was a partner in a business that the partners carried on from their respective homes. The tenant installed a telephone in the flat and placed office equipment in the entrance hall. Notepaper headed with the name of the business gave the telephone number of the flat. The tenant issued statements on the notepaper of the flat and had frequent visitors carrying briefcases. The Court of Appeal held that although the tenant occupied the flat as a dwelling as well as for the purposes of his business, the occupation for the purposes of his business was the significant purpose of the occupation. He occupied the premises for the purposes of his business within section 23(1) of the 1954 Act.
In the second case, the tenant of a lease of a maisonette was a medical practitioner who had consulting rooms in nearby premises. He occupied the maisonette as his home but entered the address of both the consulting rooms and the maisonette in the medical directory and printed telephone numbers for both addresses on the separate notepaper at each address. The only professional use he made of the maisonette was to see a patient there once or twice a year in an emergency. The Court of Appeal held that the significant purpose for which the tenant occupied the maisonette was residential and it was not a business tenancy within section 23(1).