header-logo header-logo

17 April 2026
Issue: 8157 / Categories: Legal News , Landlord&tenant , Property , Housing
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do

247161
© Getty images
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent

The court accepted services have value but held that, under the Housing Act 1988, rent requires a monetary element or agreed valuation. Without it, the tenancy falls outside the assured regime, leaving occupants vulnerable to eviction.

The judgment draws on historical distinctions, rejecting arguments that ‘money’s worth’ alone suffices. As Naylor notes, while rent once included ‘peppercorns’ or services, modern law ‘insists upon arithmetic’.

The decision has significant implications for unconventional housing arrangements, confirming that informal or non-cash agreements may strip tenants of key legal protections.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll