Did You See? You May Have Missed Global 100 Ltd v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835, 3 December 2021

• Published date: 24 December 2021
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Real Estate, Landlord & Tenant - Leases
• Law Firm: Gatehouse Chambers
• Author: Ms Lina Mattsson

Global 100 Ltd v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835, 3 December 2021

Possession claims; test under CPR r.55.8(2); tenancy or licence, locus standi; estoppel

The facts

NHS Property Services Ltd ("NHS") are the owners of a building. They entered into an agreement with Global Guardians Management Ltd ("GGM") for the provision of property guardian services. GGM entered an inter-company arrangement with the Appellant ("A"), granting A the right to grant temporary, non-exclusive licences to persons selected by A to be guardians. The agreement also purported to confer on A "sufficient interest in the properties for [A] to bring claims for possession if required against the Guardians who whom it has granted licences."

A granted the Respondent ("R") a written agreement, described as a temporary licence agreement. The agreement provided, amongst other things, that the Guardians are allocated properties "from which they perform those Guardian functions which necessarily required them to occupy their designated space with others for the period of the agreement." Clause 1.5 stated that the agreement did not give the Guardian a right to use any specific room as living space within the property.

NHS gave notice to GGM terminating their agreement. NHS and GGM then entered a further agreement which provided:

"To the extent that such a right does not already exist on an ongoing basis under the terms of the agreement . NHS PS Ltd hereby grants GGM Limited a right of possession of the Property for the sole purpose of enabling eviction of GGM's former licensees and any other person occupying the Property."

A issued proceedings against R and others. She defended, on the basis, amongst other things, that she was as AST tenant as the "factual reality" was that she had exclusive possession of her room. In the alternative it was alleged that the written agreement was a sham arrangement in consequence of the pleaded factual realities. The defence also challenged A's right to bring possession proceedings at all, because it had no sufficient interest in the land and the remedy sought exceeded its rights as pleaded.

The courts below

DJ Parker granted A possession at the first hearing as she held that the possession claim was not genuinely disputed on grounds which appeared to be substantial. On appeal, HHJ Luba QC allowed the appeal. He held that the threshold for defending a claim under Part 55.8 was "a relatively low one"; and that unless the points pleaded by the defence were unarguable...