Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment Date: 3 March 1978
Where Reported: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1014; [1978] 2 All E.R. 1011
Legal Issues in Somma v Hazelhurst
The legal issue in Somma v Hazelhurst concerned whether the agreements between the landlord (Somma) and the occupants (Hazelhurst and Savelli) constituted tenancies or licenses.
This distinction is crucial as it determines the legal rights and protections of the occupants.
Somma v Hazelhurst focused on whether the agreements granted exclusive possession to the occupants, indicative of a tenancy, despite being drafted as licenses.
The case also examined whether the agreements were genuine or shams intended to circumvent the Rent Acts, thereby challenging the legal nature and interpretation of such occupancy agreements​​.
Material Facts in Somma v Hazelhurst
In Somma v Hazelhurst, Mr. Hazelhurst and Miss Savelli, an unmarried couple, sought accommodation together in London. They responded to an advertisement and visited a property owned by Miss Somma.
They were shown a double bed-sitting room by Mr. Ritter, the managing agent, and decided to take the room.
Each was given a separate printed form of agreement, which they signed, agreeing to the terms including sharing the room potentially with others and maintaining the property in good condition.
These agreements were expressed as licenses and did not confer exclusive possession of the room. The couple moved in and signed successive agreements for 12-week periods.
After some time, they approached a rent officer to have their instalments reduced, claiming they were tenants under the Rent Acts. This claim led to a legal dispute over whether their agreements with Miss Somma constituted tenancies or licenses​​.
Judgment in Somma v Hazelhurst
The Court of Appeal held that the agreements between Miss Somma and the occupants were licenses and not tenancies.
The court found that the separate agreements did not constitute a joint tenancy due to the absence of a joint and several obligation for the full consideration of the room.
Each occupant was only responsible for half of the amount. Additionally, the right reserved by the owner to introduce another licensee if one occupant left was inconsistent with a grant of exclusive possession.
The court concluded that the agreements, taken as a whole, conferred personal licenses on each of the occupants.
Therefore, the agreements did not grant the occupants the rights and protections associated with a tenancy under the Rent Acts​​.
The Reason for the Decision in Somma v Hazelhurst
The decision in Somma v Hazelhurst was based on the interpretation of the agreements and the intention of the parties involved.
The Court of Appeal focused on whether the agreements granted exclusive possession to the occupants, a key determinant of a tenancy.
The court noted that the agreements were drafted as licenses and did not grant exclusive possession.
Instead, they allowed for the possibility of the room being shared with others, including the licensor or another licensee introduced by Miss Somma.
The court also considered the structure of the payments under the agreements. Each occupant was responsible for only half of the amount for the room, which indicated separate obligations rather than a joint tenancy. This distinction was crucial in determining the nature of the agreements.
Furthermore, the court acknowledged the importance of the written agreements and the surrounding circumstances. The judge in the lower court had found that the agreements represented the true intention of the parties.
This finding was significant because it suggested that the parties intended to create licenses, not tenancies.
The court also noted that there was no oral agreement or other evidence that could alter the meaning of the written agreements​​.
The decision also took into account public policy considerations. The court rejected the notion that the clauses permitting the landlord to impose another occupant were illegal or contrary to public policy.
It was recognised that these clauses were part of the agreements and did not invalidate the nature of the licenses​​.
The court concluded that the agreements, as drafted, gave rise to personal obligations consistent with licenses.
This conclusion was based on the specific terms and conditions of the agreements, which did not align with those typically found in tenancies.
The court emphasised that to construe the agreements as tenancies would require substantial rewriting, which was not warranted in this case​​.
Conclusion
Somma v Hazelhurst is a fundamental case in property law, illustrating the importance of the terms and intentions of parties in occupancy agreements.
The case reaffirms that the determination of whether an arrangement constitutes a tenancy or license depends on the specific terms of the agreement, particularly regarding exclusive possession.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Somma v Hazelhurst highlights the necessity of closely examining the written terms and the actual practice under the agreements to determine their true nature.
This judgment serves as a precedent in clarifying the distinctions between tenancies and licenses, emphasising the legal implications of these distinctions under the Rent Acts.
