The case identifies disputes arising over property right, property law, and the exposition of tenancy agreements in public authority leases.
Brent LBC v Shulem B Association [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch)
Summary
The case of Brent London Borough Council (LBC) v Shulem B Association [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch) concerns a claim for the determination of the court in matters of property possession. Brent LBC sought possession of premises held by Shulem B Association, arguing that Shulem B Association was occupying the premises without lawful authority. The case identifies disputes arising over property right, property law, and the exposition of tenancy agreements in public authority leases.
Facts
Brent London Borough Council owned property let to Shulem B Association, a charitable organization. Shulem B Association had occupied the property for a number of years to carry out educational and community services. The Council initiated action for possession of property, as they claimed Shulem B Association occupied the premises without any form of a legal or formal agreement.
The council took the position that the occupation by the Association was on a temporary toleration basis under terms which had since elapsed. The Association, on the other hand, contested that they had an underlying right of occupation in the premises under implied or informal accord with the Council.
Issues
The main legal problems as presented in this case are as follows:
1. Whether Shulem B Association had a right of occupation in the premises.
2. Whether there was any tenancy, license or other mutual arrangement or understanding or informal inroad which would or might affect the result or application thereafter of the rights of parties or be relevant to any period of adverse possession.
3. The operation to be given to any agreements or understandings between the parties
First Instance
The County Court was the court before which the case was listed for the first time. The Council applied for an order of possession of the estate on immediate terms. That was because there was no existing tenancy agreement, nor any existing legal right through which the Association may be permitted to go ahead with the Occupation. The response of the Association was through actions that had been taken and through the communications so made that the intention had been defined in favor of the Association and demonstrated an informal agreement or an implied tenancy that permitted action in favor of the continued use of the estate.
The County Court, therefore, determined the case in favor of the first defendant, Brent LBC, whereby it allowed repossession of the property to the Council. In its determination, the Court held that no such formal tenancy had arisen and that the Association failed to point to any evidence that could support inferring any such legally binding right to possession. There followed the decision that no evidence was advanced to draw the inference or to establish a legally binding term on which such an interest was to be held.
This was to the High Court, Chancery Division, against the County Court. The contention here was that the finding and decision by the lowest court was wrong, not only because this court failed to consider properly the status of the relation of trust that existed between the parties, but also the possible agreements that could have arisen from the several dealings over the years.
It was reopened as a question on whether there is any basis for an implied tenancy or licence in the High Court. It noticed the history of occupation of the Association, representation by the Council, and the conduct of the parties.
High Court not only upheld County Court's decision but also further insisted that Brent LBC was justified in their claim to possession of the property; although saying there were informal communications and understandings, there did not amount to the legal tenancy or license. Therefore, the occupation was deemed permissive and temporary, at the discretion of the Council to terminate.
Comments
The case of Brent LBC v Shulem B Association is a good example of the following important features of property law and interpretation of occupancy agreements:
1. Formal Agreement vs. Implied Tenancies: An issue is brought to the fore by this case on the use of formal written agreements. Without this, what happens in effect is one is trying to enforce an informal arrangement or, more accurately, an implied agreement which is notoriously difficult to enforce without clear evidence of the intention and terms.
2. Public Authority Property Management: This case presents many challenges in managing property by public authorities, wherein community use should be maximized as against legal and administrative compliance.
3. Judicial Interpretation: The judgments serve to present the perspective the courts have in interpreting the tenancy or otherwise of the occupier and the type of evidence that must be adduced to successfully make a case for an implied tenancy or license. The court is very cautious in awarding such claims unless enough evidence is brought before.
4. Effect on Charitable Organizations Whoever occupies premisses without formal agreement, may also reflect the vestiges position of the charitable organization. The organizations should obtain clear legally enforceable agreement in order to ensure the stability and continuity of their operation.
5. Precedent for Future Dispute: The verdict is a precedent for any future dispute with a de facto occupation that shows the need for arguable, clear, and documented agreements to set the legal rights accruing to one's occupation of the property.
Brent LBC v Shulem B Association is yet another case that emphasizes the need to formalize occupational arrangements and the legal context within which that could help resolve controversy concerning possession of property, specifically that between public authorities and charitable organizations. This case is a clear recap that legal rights of occupation to property should be well documented and agreed upon by all parties.
Social
