Wright v Mortimer (1996)

The tenant of a flat was an art historian whose work fell into four categories: organising exhibitions, advising private clients, lecturing and writing. Most of the work relating to the organisation of exhibitions was not done at the flat. The defendant hardly ever saw private clients at the flat and visited such clients at their place of business or home. Occasionally, foreign visitors saw him at the flat but such visits happened on average less than once a year. The defendant's writing took place at the flat. Not all the work involved was carried out there, as the writing required research in libraries and galleries. Approximately 30% of the work involved in his writing took place at the flat. None of the lectures were given there. There was no photocopier or fax machine at the flat. The ground floor room consisted of two interconnecting spaces separated by an arch. The front half was used as a sitting room and the rear half was used as a study, in which the defendant had the desk at which he worked, his typewriter, a considerable number of books, filing cabinets and a collection of photographs of paintings by Old Masters.

The tenant had occupied the flat since 1970, but in 1988 the landlord’s interest changed hands. In 1991 the new landlord sought to determine the tenancy, by giving the tenant a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

HELD: The trial judge held that the tenant was not a business tenant as was being alleged by the landlord, and was a tenant under the Rent Act 1977. The Court of Appeal agreed, as purposes are only business purposes if they form a significant element of the occupation. Although the tenant carried on some business activities at home, they were not the reasons for his occupation. The type of business was not one involving advertising or geographical location , and it concerned the selling of personal services as an expert in a particular field.

Citation: Wright v Mortimer (1996) 28 HLR 719