Providing resources for studying law
Custom Search
   Home      Norris v Checksfield

Norris v Checksfield [1991] 1 WLR 1241

Norris employed Checksfield as a mechanic. He later offered him accommodation in a bungalow and extended his employment to coach driver. The occupation in the bungalow would mean he would be readily available to drive the coach. Norris later found out that Checksfield was disqualified from driving and dismissed him and sought an order for possession of the bungalow. Checksfield  sought to resist the possession order on the grounds that he occupied under a tenancy and therefore had the protection of the Rent Act 1977.


He occupied under a service occupancy and not a tenancy. He was not therefore protected by the Rent Act 1977.

Woolf LJ:

“there must be a sufficient factual nexus between the commencement of the occupation of the premises and the employment which would benefit from that occupation.”

Back to lecture outline on requirements of a lease in Land Law