Monmouth BC v Marlog, The Times (4 May 1994)
Intention to create legal relationships in tenancy arrangements.
Facts
Mr. Roberts was a tenant of a residential property with three bedrooms under a written tenancy agreement with the landlord, Monmouth Borough Council. Ms. Marlog and her two daughters moved in with him, paying Mr. Roberts a weekly stipend. When the Council started possession proceedings against Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts left the property and Ms. Marlog claimed that she was entitled to remain in occupation as she was a sub-tenant of the residential property.
Issues
The issue arose as to whether the co-occupier of the residential property was a sub-tenant of the tenant or a mere licensee or lodger with the rights to enjoy the property.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that, where one person is the tenant of the flat and another moves into the residential premises, the Court will “be slow to infer a common intention that the one who is not the tenant shall be the sub-tenant of the one who is.” (p 33). The more likely inference to be drawn is that the parties intend a house-sharing arrangement, yet under the tenancy of one of them. On the facts of the case, there was a written agreement granting tenancy to one person from the landlord, and no other written agreement between the tenant and the other occupant to the effect that she would be his sub-tenant. This strengthens the inference that the parties did not intend to create a legal relationship of sub-tenancy. There was solely a right to use or enjoy the property. Further, the Court emphasised that the informal nature of the arrangement renders it unlikely to ascertain that an intention between the two persons, to create a relationship of landlord and tenant. Thus, the Court did not find evidence to support the assertion that Ms. Marlog was a sub-tenant in the residential property.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary concerns a 1994 Court of Appeal decision on the distinction between a sub-tenancy and a licence in a residential co-occupation context. The core legal principles discussed — that courts will be slow to infer an intention to create a sub-tenancy from an informal house-sharing arrangement, and that the absence of a written agreement between the tenant and the co-occupier is a relevant factor — remain consistent with the broader framework established in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809, which continues to be the leading authority on the distinction between a tenancy and a licence. That framework has not been displaced by subsequent legislation or case law. The article accurately reflects the decision and the legal reasoning applied. Readers should note that this is a first-instance or short Court of Appeal decision reported only in The Times and carries limited precedential weight; it is best read as an illustration of established principles rather than as a standalone authority. No statutory changes since 1994 have altered the underlying common law position on intention to create legal relations in this context.
