Leases Flashcards

(13 cards)

1
Q

General definition of leases

A

landowner permits another person to use their land for a certain period of time, usually in return for rent payments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

introduction to leases

A

Flexible device -> hybrid nature -> as property, as contract, as conferring status (landlord/tenant relationship not in vacuum, protection to tenant as party with low bargaining power).

Usually proprietary (but Bruton -> partially upset orthodoxy).

Lease = usually contractual agreement between A and B.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Definition of lease

A

LPA 1925, s.205(1)(xxvii): term of years absolute = term of years (either taking effect in possession or reversion with or without rent) either certain or liable to determination.

LPA 1925, s.149(6): lease for life = term of 90 years.

LPA 1922, s.145, Sch.15 -> no perpetual leases, converted to 2000 year terms.

Street v Mountford [1985], L Templeman: ‘tenancy is a term of years absolute [that] includes a term from week to week in possession at a rent’; occupier must be granted exclusive possession for fixed term in consideration of a premium or periodical payments.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Requirements of lease

A

3 requirements: 1. Grant of exclusive possession, 2. for a term, 3. at a rent (not actual requirement - Ashburn Anstalt [1989], AG Securities v Vaughan [1990], but satisfies consideration requirements in landlord/tanant contract + relevant for leases <3 years - s.54(2) LPA 1925).

Third parties can be excluded, and landlord to certain extent (‘limited rights to enter’ (Street v Mountford [1985]).

Exclusive possession (right to exclude rest of the world) does not equal exclusive occupation (factual control, physical occupancy).

Fixed term = set period of time; cannot terminate by notice. Periodic term = weekly, monthly, annual; automatic renewal; termination by notice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Formalities

A
  1. For leases over 7 years
    Deed + registration
  2. Leases between 3-7 years
    Deed
  3. leases under 3 years (s.54(2) LPA)
    informal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Registration

A
  1. For leases over 7 years
    enforced by s.28-29 LRA 2002
  2. Leases between 3-7 years
    enforced by notice s.32 LRA & overriding interest Sc3 para 1
  3. leases under 3 years (s.54(2) LPA)
    no notice s.33 LRA -> overriding interest Sch 3 para 1
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When is there no formalities?
e.g. when do equitable leases arise?

A
  • deed but no registration for lease greater than 7 years
  • no deed for lease less than 3 years + doctrine of anticipation (Walsh v Lonsdale)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what protection is there against third parties for leases?

A
  • notice -> s.32 LRA
    overriding interest Sch 3 para 2 -> actual occupation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Issues with Exclusive Possession: Statutory Avoidance

A
  1. Statutory protections for tenants (Rent Act 1977, security of tenure, restriction of rents, Housing Act 1988, restrictions on freedom of contract).
  2. Landlords granting licences rather than leases -> Somma v Hazelhurst [1978], often accepted by courts, landlords free to decide how to use their land (bit divorced from reality); change in court approach -> Street v Mountford [1985], parties can’t contract away their legal status: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
  3. Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] -> use of label ‘licence’, held was a lease.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sham licences

A

Landlords including terms in contract which deny tenants exclusive possession -> Antoniades v Villiers [1990]: A’s right to enter occupation was sham or pretence, clause not genuine part of the agreement -> courts will look at context to find real intention of parties.

Aslan v Murphy [1990] -> labels used by parties ‘are never conclusive’; exclusive possession will depend ‘upon a combination of factors’, terms of agreement ‘were wholly unrealistic and were clearly pretences’.

NOT ALWAYS SHAMS AND PRETENCES -> Camelot Guardian v Khoo [2018]: no exclusive possession + no sham or pretence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

justifications for sham decisions

A
  • sham = ‘acts done or documents executed by parties […] which are intended […] to give to [3rd parties or court] appearance of creating […] legal rights and obligations different from [ones] which the parties intend to create’ (Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967], L Diplock);
  • sham does not equal pretence -> ‘common intention’ to deceive = too high a standard as landlord does intent clauses to be binding albeit no intention to enforce.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what are Multiple Occupancy Agreements ?

A

share or multiple occupation of leased premises.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Problems with exclusive possession and leases/licenses distinction.

Multiple occupancy agreements

A

Options: A, B, C = licensees. 1. Each A, B, C has exclusive possession (+ therefore lease) of distinct part of premises. 2. A, B, C have exclusive possession (each entitled to whole) + therefore if 4 unities then joint tenants at law. 3. Should be possible A, B, C are TICs of lease (exclusive possession but not all unities).

Different approach by HL -> AG Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers [1990]: needed to join genuine joint tenancy (unity of possession, time, interest, title) = lease; intention to receive right to exclusive possession as TICs = no lease (s.34(2) LPA 1925 cannot operate - can’t hold TICs under trust).

Potentially problematic -> Mikeover v Brady [1989]: 4 unities must be present for joint tenancy (possession, title + time present, but no interest because no joint liability to pay monthly rent).

Absence of joint obligation of payment = inconsistent with joint tenancy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly