Heslop v Burns [1974] 1 WLR 1241
Rent free occupation for over 16 years; no formal agreement as to nature of occupation
Facts
Mr Timms developed a friendly relationship with Mr and Mrs Burns and as they were living in poor circumstances, he allowed them to live rent-free in one of his cottages. There was no formal agreement as to the nature of the occupation. Mr Timms visited the couple regularly and took meals with them. He paid all the expenses for the cottage and told Mrs Burns regularly the cottage would be theirs on his death. On his death, his executors sought possession of the cottage.
Issues
The executors argued that Mr and Mrs Burns held a license to occupy the cottage which had terminated on Mr Timms’ death. They claimed that since there was no formal agreement as to the nature of the occupation, it was impossible to infer any intention to create the legal relationship and, therefore, no tenancy could have been created. Mr and Mrs Burns asserted that from the outset they were tenants at will of Mr Timms. By virtue of s9 Limitation Act 1939, the tenancy, they claimed, became determined one year after its commencement. At that point a right of action accrued to Mr Timms and this right of action became statute barred 12 years afterwards under s4(3) Limitation Act 1939.
Decision/Outcome
Mr and Mrs Burns were held to be licensees. Given the lack of formal agreement as to the terms of the occupation, it was impossible to infer an intention to create the legal relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also impossible to infer that Mr Timms intended that he could be excluded from the cottage and therefore, the proper inference was that the agreement amounted to a license which terminated on Mr Timms’ death.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Heslop v Burns [1974] 1 WLR 1241. The core legal principles remain good law: the distinction between a licence and a tenancy depends on the intention of the parties and the circumstances, and exclusive possession is not always conclusive of a tenancy. The proposition that a licensee’s right to occupy terminates on the licensor’s death is consistent with established property law.
Readers should note that the Limitation Act 1939 provisions referred to in the article have since been replaced by the Limitation Act 1980 (in force from 1 May 1981), which consolidates and re-enacts the earlier legislation. The relevant successor provisions are s.15 and Schedule 1 of the 1980 Act. This does not affect the correctness of how those provisions were applied in the case itself, which was decided under the 1939 Act as it then stood. The broader principles from Heslop v Burns continue to be cited in discussions of licence versus tenancy, and nothing in subsequent case law or statute has overruled or materially limited the decision.
