Lease/Licence Flashcards
(56 cards)
Lease/Licence - What is it
Lease is a proprietary right in land, right of exclusive possession enforceable against everyone, repair - may move obligation for repair to the landlord, statutory protection, binding on new landlord, security of tenure. Licence - personal only, easily terminated, can’t be enforced against 3rd party
Street v Mountford
Characteristics of a lease: certainty of term and exclusive possession. Plus look at the substance NOT the form
LPA 1925 s 205 (xxvii)
No need for rent
Ashburn v Astalt Arnold
Confirmed no need for rent
Lace v Chandler
For a fixed term lease, need to know the maximum duration of the term from when the lease starts. Until the end of WW2 not sufficient
Prudential Insurance v London
Until land needed for road widening - not fixed. But it was an implied periodic because payment was by reference to a defined period
Break clauses and forfeiture clauses
Can still be a fixed term
Berrisford v Mexfield
Uncertain lease interpreted as a lease for life = 90 year fixed term determinable on an uncertain event/death of grantee
Hammon v Farrow
Period will be by reference to agreed mode - monthly, weekly, etc. £500 per month = mostly periodic tenancy
Javad v Aqil
you won’t have periodic tenancy if the payments are temporarily arrangement - ‘until we sort out the lease’ - if there’s no intention to create periodic
Implied periodic
automatically renewed until either party serves a notice to quit - with nothing in writing but looking at:
i. Ladies Hosiery v Parker - agreed mode of payment used
ii. Barclays Wealth v Erimus - can also be other factors looked at by court
Aslan v Murphy
whether the L has they key - whether he can enter. If the L has the key for emergency - does not defeat possession. But if it has the right to enter the building whenever he wants - not exclusive possession. But if he never does - it’s a sham
AG Securities v Vaugh
Right to exclude others - here, genuine. Type - very large flat, 4 locking bedrooms, shared kitchen and bathroom. Relationship - 4 young professionals who answered adverts, didn’t know each other. Wording - introduce others up to a maximum of 4 and there were 4 bedrooms. Had been exercised - if they couldn’t find a new housemate he would find one for them and pay for adverts etc. Genuine reservation of the right, exclusive possession defeated
Antonaides v Villiers
Right to exclude others - here, sham so still exclusive possession. Clause saying landlord could introduce others and landlord himself could share. Type - 1 room bedsit. Relationship - unmarried couple, double bed. Wording - share introduce others without limit - just put in to defeat exclusive possession, unrealistic. Had never been exercised. “An air of complete unreality”
Marchant v Charters and Huwler v Ruddy
If landlord provides services and has unrestricted access to provide them, not exclusive if not sham. Lodger not a tenant - making beds or breakfast
Service occupancy defeats the lease - Norris v Checkserfield
coach driver - given accommodation given where he worked but he didn’t have driving licence. This was a service occupancy. There must be a factual nexus - the employment to do and the occupation must improve it thanks to the lease
Royal Philantropic v County
When housemaster at school, service occupancy because lived in school house. Then moved out of school house to another house owned by the school, and it was held that this was a perk of the job, not service occupancy. Won’t be a service occupancy if it’s just a perk of the job - employment needs to be material
No Intention to create legal relations - Facchini v Bryson
Although rent not essential - if not paid then it might mean that it’s just an act of generosity not a lease - no ICLR. Also family or friends relationship makes lease less likely
Heslop v Burns
No intention, letting them live there was complete act of generosity
Nunn v Dalrymple
No generosity, paid rent, did renovation works - there was ICLR
Exclusive possession and business tenancies
Street v Mountford is applicable to business tenancies. Affects security of tenure because tenants, but not licensees, are protected by Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Does the landlord retain control over the property? Construe documents as a whole. Court more likely to accept the label because parties have legal advice, should understand what they’re doing
Dresden Estates v Collinson
Agreement labelled as a license and landlord reserved right to require Collinson to move into another property. Looking at all circumstances and provisions, changing the property wasn’t compatible with tenancy, so only a license - no exclusive possession
Esso Petroleum v Fumergrange
3 separate agreements. Esso had high degree of control - dictate colour scheme, layout, what could be sold, terms of car wash, right to come in and inspect the accounts. Agreements looked at as one, the level of control meant was a license
Clear Channel v Manchester City Council
Advertising sites - looking at substance of arrangement was a license - business had chosen to enter an agreement called a license, they should have known what they were doing
