L2 : Leases - detailed Flashcards
Street v Mountford (1985) (HL)
Main point: where residential accommodation is granted for a certain term (at a rent)* w/ exclusive possession, legal csq = creation of a tenancy, doesn’t matter that the parties try to call it a licence
Summary: S granted M right to occupy 2 rooms for £37/w/ subj to termination by 14d notice and condº laid out in ‘licence agreement’, – M & husband had exclusive occupation of the rooms
=> HL held it was a tenancy : where residential accom has been granted for a term at a rent w/ exclusive possession, grantor providing neither attendance nor services, legal csq = tenancy – irrelevant that the parties called the ag ‘licence’
Street v Mountford (1985) (HL) - Tenant v lodger
tenant ≠ lodger :
* Lodger : where landlord provides attendance / svc which require L / his servants to exercise unrestricted access to and use of the premises => “A lodger is entitled to live in the premises but cannot call the place his own”
- Tenant: has exclusive possession = rights of an O of land, ‘albeit temporarily and subject to certain restrictions’ => express reservation by L of limited rights to enter (to view state of premises / repair and maintain them) not a pb (as long as limited)
Watts v Stewart (2018) (main point)
Main point (A textbook) : CA drawing sharp distinction between legal exclusive possession on the one hand (= what T has: right to exclude all 3Ps incl L) and a merely personal right of exclusive occupation on the other hand
Watts v Stewart (2018) (quote)
Sir Terrence Etherton MR at [38]:
“whether an occupier is a licensee or a tenant is not necessarily determined by the labels or language used by the parties. It turns on the intention of the parties having regard to all the admissible evidence.”
Lord Denning in Errington - summarising position one whether occupier is tenant or licensee
“The result of all these cases is that, although a person who is let into exclusive possession is prima facie to be considered to be a tenant, nevertheless he will not be held to be so if the circumstances negative any intention to create a tenancy. Words alone may not suffice. Parties cannot turn a tenancy into a licence merely by calling it one. But if the circumstances and the conduct of the parties show that all that was intended was that the occupier should be granted a personal privilege, with no interest in the land, he will be held to be a licensee only”
Westminster CC v Clarke (1992) (HL)
Main point : case where no tenancy bcs ag didn’t confer exclusive possession of room
Summary: C council owned premises w/ 31 single rooms (each w/ bed and cooking facilities) used as hostel for homeless single men (incl D) => D signed licence to occupy:
* stating that not intended to give D right to exclusive occ of any room allocated to him
* council could change accom without notice or require him to share,
* ag only gave D right to occupy ‘in common w/ council (representative could enter at any time)
* D required to be in room by 11pm every night + ensure that visitors left by that time + not do anything disturbing other residents
When C served notice to terminate ag, D claimed protection of Housing Act 1985 => HL held in favour of C: licence could only create secure tenancy if conferred exclusive possession, and not the case here, C retained possession of D’s room
AG securities v Vaughan (1990) (HL)
4 separate ag made at ≠ date granted 4 occupants exclusive right to use 4 bedroom flat in common w/ 3 other occupants, in return for monthly payment (ag for 6m, renewable)
=> HL held that occupants were licensees, not tenants, bcs 4 ag indep from each other + didn’t confer right of exclusive possession on any indiv occ, just a right to share the flat with others + made on ≠ dates w/ ≠ ppl for ≠ terms and rent so not a joint tenancy, would be artificial to try and mould the separate contracts into one
=> contrast w/ Antoniades v Villiers (decision handed down simultaneously)
Antoniades v Villiers (1990) (HL)
L entered contemporaneously into separate but identical ag w/ man and GF, granting them right to occupy flat in his property – ag expressed to be licences + stated that licensor not granting exclusive possession, use of room in common w/ licensor or any other licensees he may allow to use them – in fact L never imposed any extra occupant, but did allow a friend of theirs to stay
=> HL held that there was a tenancy : 2 ag made at the same time were interdependent + purported right of L to introduce new occupiers = pretense to avoid protections of the Rent Acts, where actually intention was to confer on occupants exclusive possession for a term at rent = joint tenancy created, artificial to deny it
=> contrast w/ AG Securities v Vaughan (decision handed down simultaneously)
Aslan v Murphy ; Duke v Wine (1990) (CA)
Main point: court must “have regard to the true rather than the apparent bargain made by the parties”
Situation 1: C owned small basement room occupied exclusively by D under written ag which said that D not in exclusive possession of any pt of room, D had licence to use in common w/ other licencees, D had to vacate room for 90min every day and C would retain keys to the room
Situation 2: C = O of a 3 bedroom house occupied exclusively by Ds and their children under written ag providing that D had no right to exclusive occ (occ shared w/ other ppl as directed by C), C would retain a key and reserved right to enter at any time
=> CA held in favour of D in both cases there was a tenancy : court “had to have regard to the true rather than the apparent bargain made by the parties”
=> in both cases, true bargain = granting Ds exclusive possession unless and until C required them to share - Ds were tenants and could not be unilaterally turned into licensees by C requiring them to share occupation
Mikover v Brady (1989) (CA)
Main point: no JT where no unity of interest (each T lb to pay only for their part of the rent)
L owned 2 room flat, D and friend applied to occupy, signed identical ag granting licensee a right to use in common w/ other granted a like right to the rooms, for 6m (renewable), monthly rent – 2y later F moved out, D offered to pay whole rent but L refused, L sought possession when D fell into arrears on his own rent
=> CA held that not a JT bcs no unity of interest, each lb to pay only for their pt of the rent (so not jointly and severally lb)
Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo (2018) (CA)
Main point = eg of an ag effective as a licence (not a disguised tenancy)
C = member of gp of companies arranging for ‘property guardians’ to occupy vacant buildings temporarily to protect them, C entered into ag w/ D who was to act as guardian of building => ‘licence ag’ specifying D didn’t get exclusive possession, sharing w/ C, who reserved right to alter extent / location of living space within building / change room D occupied + prohibited D from holding meetings or parties, have overnight guests or more than 2 visitors during the day
=> CA held in favour of C = D was a licensee : ag granted right to occ property as a whole w/ other guardians but no exclusive possession of a particular room – given purpose of ag, essential that possession could be returned to O at short notice => ag not a pretence, really did create licence
Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold (1989) (CA)
Main point = confirmed that it is possible to have a tenancy without a rent
/!\ overruled on other grounds but CA has reaffirmed principle it is possible to have a lease without rent in Skipton Building Society v Clayton (1993)
+ rent point found in LPA 1925, s205(1) : term of years absolute = “a term of years […] whether or not for a rent”
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body (1992) (HL)
Main point: ag for an uncertain period is void – takes effect on implied tenancy based on tenant’s possession and payment of rent
O of strip of land alongside highway sold land to local authority, who leased it back to him in same ag until such time as land was required to widen the highway – council abandoned plans to widen highway, reversion passed to D1 and lease was assigned to C, who sought declaration that tenancy could only be determined on land being required for road widening
=> HL held in favour of D: lease in the ag was for an uncertain period and therefore void => land held instead on yearly tenancy created by tenant’s possession and payment of yearly rent
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (2012) (HL) (main point)
a tenancy failing for uncertainty of term (bcs L can’t serve notice unless certain circumstances arise) which would’ve been a tenancy for life before 1926 takes effect as a 90y lease under s149 LPA 1925
Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd (2012) (HL) (summary)
Mrs B (B) = tenant in property belonging to housing association (M), under standard periodic tenancy ag which included provision for T to end tenancy by giving 1m notice, but no equivalent for L (could only end tenancy on specific circumstances eg breach of covenant or T in arrears) – M nevertheless purported to serve notice to B, who refused to vacate => lower courts applied Prudential and found that periodic tenancy which L could not terminate void bcs uncertain term, B held under implied periodic tenancy bcs was in occº and paid rent, so M could terminate w/ 1m notice
=> HL held in favour of B : M not entitled to possession bcs B had 90y lease
- in absence of indication to the contrary, tenancy granted ‘from month to month’ = monthly tenancy which can be terminated by either party by giving 1m notice
- BUT here, ≠ bcs M couldn’t serve notice unless certain circumstances arose : tenancy void for uncertainty of term => ag would’ve given rise to tenancy for life prior to 1926, to be treated as a tenancy for a term of 90y instead, determinable acc to clauses in ag or on B’s death
