Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Land Law > Leases > Flashcards

Leases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

A.G. Securities Ltd v Vaughan (1988) Facts

A

Furnished four bedroom flat
Individual agreements were entered into for each occupier
Multi-Occupation (4 occupiers)
Rent was different
Period of occupation differed
When one occupier left, he was replaced by another under a new agreement
•Held:
o They were Licensees
o Independent agreements
o Accepted that there could have been separate tenancies of the part of the house
o No unity, title, or interest between them

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

A.G. Securities Ltd v Vaughan (1988) Principle

A

In Multi-occupation situations, if the agreements are independent from each other:

  • There is no single right of exclusive possession
  • they are not joint tenants
  • The 4 unities do not exists
  • There is no lease, they are separate licences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

A.G. Securities Ltd v Vaughan (1988) Topic

A
  • Exclusive Possession
  • Multi-Occupation
  • Joint Tenants
  • 4 Unities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Antoniades v Villiers (1990) Facts

A

•Couple moved into a 2 bedroom flat
•Signed separate, but identical agreements.
oRight for licensor to introduce third occupier
•Held:
o They were joint tenants
o The agreements were interdependent
• Should be read together as a whole
• Both would sign or neither
• Third person clause was unrealistic (Sham)

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

Antoniades v Villiers (1990) Principle

A
  1. Multi-occupation situation, if agreements are interdependent:
    - They should be read together
    - Should be treated as same document
    - They are joint tenants as long as the 4 unities are present
  2. Term that landlord can choose anyone else to move in with the couple
    o Term was held to be a sham
    o Inserted to mislead the reader to the nature of the agreement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Antoniades v Villiers (1990) Topic

A
  • Exclusive Possession
  • Multi-Occupation
  • 4 Unities
  • Shams
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Aslan v Murphy (1989) Facts

A

•Occupant lived in a small basement
•Document stated that he had to share the accommodation with another occupier and vacate the property for 1 hour and 30 minutes each day
•Tenant or lodger?
•Held:
o Occupant was a tenant
o Clauses in the document were “wholly unrealistic and were clerely pretences”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Aslan v Murphy (1989) Principle

A
  • Inserted to mislead the reader to the nature of the agreement
  • Courts can ignore these terms when determining exclusive possession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Aslan v Murphy (1989) Topic

A
  • Exclusive Possession
  • Single Occupier
  • Shams/Pretences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Booker v Palmer (1942) Facts

A 
•Owner of a cottage
•Allowed person who was bombed out of her his to live there for the duration of the war.
•Held:
o	Licence was created
o	Act of Charity
•	No intention to enter legal relations
•	No contractual relationship
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Booker v Palmer (1942) Principle

A
  • Acts of Charity is an exception to exclusive possession

- They are licences, cannot be leases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Booker v Palmer (1942) Topic

A
  • Exception to Exclusive Possession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Marchant v Charters (1977) Facts

A

•Single man occupied a room in a large house
•Shared bathroom and cooking area
•Housekeeper clean roomed on a daily bases and changed linens once a week
•Applied to the rent officer for registration of a fair rent
•Owner of house served him notice to quit
•Held:
o It was a licence, not a lease
• Was not intended to have stake in the room

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Marchant v Charters (1977) Principle

A
  • Some terms might indicate that exclusive possession cannot exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Marchant v Charters (1977) Topic

A
  • Exclusive Possession

- Terms in document that might indicate the absence or presence of Exclusive Possession

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mikeover v Brady (1989) Facts

A

•Couple signed separate, but identical ‘licence’ agreements.
•Each were obligated to pay only part of the rent
•One tenant moved out, with the other, D, offering to pay the difference
•D fell into arrears for his half
•P tried to remove him
•D claimed it was a lease
•Held:
o They were independent agreements
• Each paid different amount
o They only had licences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Mikeover v Brady (1989) Principle

A

If 4 unities are not present:

  • No exclusive possession
  • Licence, not a lease
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Mikeover v Brady (1989) Topic

A
  • Exclusive Possession
  • Multi-occupation
  • 4 unities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Street v Mountford (1985) Facts

A

•Re-established the primacy of exclusive possession
oDownplayed the stated intentions of the parties
•M signed an agreement, termed a licence agreement
•Right to occupy 2 rooms for weekly licence fee of £37
•At the foot of the document, signed by her, it stated: “I understand and accept that a licence in the above form does not and is not intended to give me a tenancy protected under the Rents Act”
•M sought to have fair rent registered
•Owner argued that she was a licensee, not a tenant
•Held:
o M is a tenant
o Agreement have M exclusive possession of the rooms
o Intention was held to be irrelevant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Street v Mountford (1985) Principle

A
  • Intention is not as important as the facts when creating a lease/licence
21
Q

Street v Mountford (1985) Topic

A
  • Lodger v Tenant
  • Exclusive Possession
  • Intention of parties
22
Q

Rugby School v Tannahill (1935) Facts

A

o Tenant broke a term in the lease (negative covenant)
o Land should not be used for immoral purpose (prostitution)
o Court said this breach was such a breach was incapable of being remedied
o Even if the tenant stopped, there would be a stigma that could not be removed

23
Q

Rugby School v Tannahill (1935) Principle

A

Forfeiture s. 146 LPA 1925
When can breaches be remedied?
Situation could not be remedied

Bad stigma

24
Q

Glass v Kencakes (1966) Facts

A

o Immoral use of prostitution was by sub-tenant

o Courts find that if the sub-tenant was evicted, that would be a sufficient remedy

25
Q

Glass v Kencakes (1966) Principle

A

Forfeiture s. 146 LPA 1925
When can breaches be remedied?
Situation could be remedied under s.146

Evict the sub-tenant

26
Q

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold Facts

A

• D had lease of business premises
• Sold lease to lease, but terms of agreement allowed D to remain on the premises as licensees
• Rent free
• Until receiving notice that the purchaser was ready to develop the site
• Upon redevelopment, D will receive a lease of a shop
• Eventually, P acquired both the freehold and lease, accepting the contractual duties to D
• P sought possession without serving the notice provided
• D argued that it’s lease bound P.
• Held:
o Agreement was only a licence
o Rent is not required for the creation of a tenancy
o Licence still bounded P
o Possession was refused

27
Q

Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold Principle

A

o Rent is not required for the creation of a tenancy

Retrospective certainty sufficient
• Until notice given that premises needed for re-development

28
Q

Walsh v. Lonsdale (principle)

A
  • in equity, ‘an agreement for a lease is as good as a lease’
  • important equitable principle, which has the effect of ‘saving’ a lease, or other grant, where the parties have attempted to create a legal estate, but have not satisfied the formality, as set out in section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, of executing a deed.

•Must be a contract under s.2 LP(MP)A 1989
o Written
o Signed by the parties

29
Q

4 unities of possession?

A

1) Possession
Right to occupy a single property

2) Interest
Same period/obligations (rent)

3) Time
Acquiring rights at the same time from landlord

4) Title
Single rather than separate agreement

If ALL YES, they are joint tenants

30
Q

4 Characteristics of a lease?

A

1) certainty of duration
2) Exclusive possession
3) Rent
4) Lease must be created by using specific formalities

31
Q

Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd v. London Residuary Body Principle

A

Two important principles in relation to the creation of leases

  1. the maximum duration must be certain from the outset.
    • An attempt to create a lease for a term of uncertain duration such as ‘until the land is required for road widening’ (or ‘until the War is over’) did not give rise to a fixed-term lease
    • Whatever the duration of a lease, the term must be certain: that is, it must have a certain beginning date and a certain end date.
  2. Periodic tenancy can arise by implication
    • based on the fact that the tenant has gone into possession, and the periodic payment of rent thereafter.
32
Q

Berrisford v Mexfield Principle

A
  • Uncertainty of length, in common law, can be transferred into a lease for life”
  • Lease for life 90yrs
  • S. 149(6)

Prudential rule of certainty would say the lease is void for lack of certainty

33
Q

Van Haarlam Facts

A
  • Tenant breached covenant to not use land for immoral purposes
  • He was spying
  • Court granted him relief against forfeiture
  • He had an 80 yrs lease, only had it for 4 or 5 yrs
  • to refuse relief would deprive him of a valuable asset
  • would have been double punishment
34
Q

Van Haarlam Principle

A
  • Court will grant relief if it would be unfair to allow forfeiture
35
Q

Billson Principle

A

s. 146 notice
Apply for relief of forfeiture by tenant
held:
-Tenant can apply for relief from when notice is served until a judgement order has been delivered
- Can still apply for relief after peaceable re-entry

36
Q

Marchant v Charters Facts

A
  • M occupied single room in a large house
  • term in lease that housekeeper would clean the room daily and clean the linens weekly
  • Term indicated that Exclusive possession did not exist
    held:
  • No exclusive possession
  • He was a lodger
37
Q

Marchant v Charters Principle

A

Terms in the lease can indicate that Exclusive possession is impossible

38
Q

Harvey v Pratt Principle

A
  • Future leases
  • Certainty
  • they are void unless they have a clear start date
  • Start date can be expressed or inferred
39
Q

Westminister v Clarke Facts

A
  • Homeless Shelter
  • C had a room
  • Term in the contract that W could introduce a second lodger at any time
  • Held
  • no Exclusive possession
  • Term was valid
40
Q

Westminister v Clarke Principle

A
  • Terms that the landlord could introduce a second occupant

- No exclusive possession

41
Q

Bruton Facts

A
  • D received land for charitable purposes (exception to EP)
  • D rented B
  • B wanted D to repair the room
  • D argued not a lease
    held:
  • B had a lease
  • D was capable of creating a non-estate lease
  • B had Exclusive possession
42
Q

Bruton Principle

A

B had a lease

  • D was capable of creating a non-estate lease
  • B had Exclusive possession
43
Q

Lace v Chantler Principle

A
  • Lease for duration of the war
  • void for uncertainty
  • Unclear when it would end
44
Q
  1. Certainty Cases?
A
  • Harvey v Pratt
  • Lace v Chantler
  • Asburn Anstalt v Arnold
  • Prudential Assurance
  • Berrisford v Mexfield
45
Q
  1. Exclusive Possession cases
A

Exclusive Possession
- Street v Mountford (Lord Templeman)

Terms

  • Aslan v Murphy
  • Marchant v Charters
  • Westminister v Clarke
  • Antoniades

Unity of Possession

  • Antoniades
  • Vaughan
  • Mikeover v Brady

Exceptions to Exclusive Possession

  • Bruton
  • Booker v Palmer
  • Crane v Morris
46
Q
  1. Rent Cases?
A
  • Ashburn Ainstalt v Arnold

- Brown v Gould

47
Q
  1. Formalities Cases/sections?
A
  • S. 1 LPA 1925
  • S. 2 LP(MP)A 1989
  • S. 52(1) LPA 1925
  • s. 27(2) LRA 2002 (more than 7 years)
  • S. 54(2) LPA 1925 (3 yrs or less)

Equity
- Walsh v Lonsdale

48
Q
  1. Breach of Covenant Cases/sections?
A

Peaceable re-entry
- Billson

Forfeiture

  • Rent (s.212 CLP Act 1852)
  • Breach of covenant

Breach of covenant

  • s. 146
  • Akicci v Butlin (Neuberger LJ)
  • Rugby School v Tannahill
  • Glass v Kencakes
  • Van Haarlam

Land Law (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions