Gurton v Parrott and another [1991]

The tenant bred dogs and provided kennelling for which she charged. In 1974, she was granted a tenancy for residential purposes.

HELD: The question of whether the tenant occupied the premises for the purposes of a business is one of fact, and should be decided by the trial judge. On the evidence before him, the judge found that the reason the tenant occupied the premises was for the purpose of a residence. Therefore, she did not occupy the premises for the purposes of a business, so did not have a business tenancy.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the landlord’s appeal.

Citation: Gurton v Parrott and another [1991] 1 EGLR 98