LEASEHOLD Flashcards
STREET V MOUNTFORD (1985)
Facts: Street granted Mountford the right to occupy two rooms in his house, with exclusive possession for a weekly rent and determinable on 14 days notice.
Street had Mountford sign a declaration that the right to occupy constituted a licence and not a lease.
Mountford sought a declaration that the agreement constituted a lease
Issue: Was the agreement a lease?
Yes.
Reasoning:
A lease can be defined as the grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent.
A court is entitled to look behind the label given to an agreement to decide whether in fact a lease was granted but disguised as a licence.
The agreement here was clearly a lease therefore Mountford was entitled to legislative protection under landlord and tenant legislation.
NATIONAL CAR PARKS LTD V THE TRINITY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD 2001
NCP entered an agreement with Tirnity Development Co under which they agreed to manage a car park. The agreement was stated to be a licence and TDC had 40 spaces reserved for their employees free of change. TDC served notice to end the agreement, and NCP sought a declaration that the agreement amounted to a lease in substance and effect.
Question: Whether agreement in relation to a car park was a lease or license.
Held: The agreement was held to be a license. It was also significant that there was no convenant of quiet enjoyment, which is usual characteristic of a tenancy.
