- Almsperson did not have security of tenure (Watts v Stewart)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What were the issues involved?
- What were Mrs Watts' arguments ?
- What did the Court of Appeal decide?
- Why did Mrs Watts not have exclusive legal possession?
- Why was Mrs Watts not automatically a tenant at will as a beneficiary of the charity?
- What about Gray v Taylor?
- What of the article 8 and article 14 argument?
- Were the proceedings ‘charity proceedings’?
- To what extent is the judgment helpful?
- Case details
Property analysis: The Court of Appeal confirmed that an almsperson did not have security of tenure in relation to a property she occupied. Exclusive occupation is not the same as, and so may or may not, amount to legal possession depending on the circumstances. An occupier who enjoys exclusive possession is not necessarily a tenant. The occupier may be an object of charity. If an occupier is a beneficiary of a charity that occupation is not necessarily that of tenant at will.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial