Nunn v Dalyrymple (1989) 59 P&CR 231
Landlord and tenant; family relationship between parties; whether lease or license
Facts
Mr Chapman owned the leasehold estate of a farm which was managed by his son. A lodge within the farm fell vacant, and the son arranged for his parents-in-law, the Dalyrymples, to renovate and occupy it. Upon completing the renovations, the Dalyrymples gave up their secured tenancy of a council flat and moved into the lodge, making periodic payments to Mr Chapman. Mr Chapman sold the premises to Mr Nunn with vacant possession and he served a notice to quit on the Dalyrymples.
Issues
The Dalyrymples contended they were protected tenants of the lodge. They argued they were paying rent, and held exclusive possession for a term and, as such, were tenants under the test in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. They also argued their having given up their secured tenancy on their council flat was evidence of their reliance upon there being a tenancy, and an intention to create legal relations with Mr Chapman. Mr Nunn argued the arrangement was a family agreement which was not intended to give rise to legal obligations. The fact that there was no clear agreement when the Dalyrymples moved into the lodge regarding the payment of rent, indicated that there was no tenancy ever contemplated by either party.
Decision/Outcome
The agreement was held to be a tenancy. Where there is exclusive possession for a term and the payment of rent, there is prima facie, a tenancy under Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809. It is possible for this presumption to be rebutted in the context of family relationships, but the existence of a familial link between the parties was in and of itself insufficient to rebut the presumption. Accordingly, the Dalyrymples were protected tenants.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Nunn v Dalrymple (1989) 59 P&CR 231 is correctly reported, and the legal principles described continue to reflect good law. The foundational test from Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809 — that exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a prima facie tenancy — remains authoritative and has not been overruled. The principle that a family relationship alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption of a tenancy is also still good law, confirmed in subsequent case law. Readers should note that the broader statutory framework governing protected tenancies under the Rent Act 1977 has been significantly curtailed in practice: assured and assured shorthold tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 now govern most residential lettings created after 15 January 1989, meaning the Rent Act 1977 protections at issue in this case apply only to a diminishing number of older tenancies. However, this does not affect the accuracy of the case summary itself, which concerns a letting arising before that date.
