Hussein v Mehlman [1992] 2 EGLR 287

Facts

• The case concerned an arrangement between Mr. Hussein and Mr. Mehlman regarding occupation of property.
• The central issue was whether the agreement constituted a lease or a license.
• The court analyzed the nature of control exercised by Mr. Hussein over the property.
• While some services were provided by the landlord, the court found these to be minor and infrequent.
• The factual arrangement, rather than the terms used by the parties, was examined to determine the agreement's legal effect.

Issues

1. Whether the arrangement between the parties amounted to a lease or a license.
2. Whether the provision of minor services by the landlord negated exclusive possession.
3. The appropriate application of the exclusive possession test established in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809.
4. The legal implications for the parties depending on the classification of the agreement.

Decision

• The court held that the agreement between Mr. Hussein and Mr. Mehlman constituted a lease.
• It was determined that Mr. Hussein had exclusive possession of the property despite minor services being provided.
• The court reaffirmed that the exclusive possession test, and not the label given by the parties, is dispositive.
• Limited or trivial services were held insufficient to negate a finding of exclusive possession.
• The judgment underscored the significant statutory protections for tenants holding a lease, as compared to licensees.

Legal Principles

• The exclusive possession test is central in distinguishing a lease from a license.
• The true nature of an occupancy agreement depends on the actual arrangement and control, not on the label used in the contract.
• The principles from Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 remain authoritative; an occupant with exclusive possession is usually deemed a tenant.
• Provision of minor or infrequent services by the landlord does not necessarily remove exclusive possession or change a lease into a license.
• The lease-license distinction affects statutory protections, including security of tenure and eviction rights.

Conclusion

The decision in Hussein v Mehlman confirms that exclusive possession is the key determinant for identifying a lease, that minor services do not override genuine control, and that the factual reality of occupation prevails over contractual labels, reinforcing the continued importance of the principles set out in Street v Mountford for property law.