Leases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Give the two bare requirements for a lease?

A
  1. Certainty of term
  2. Exclusive possession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406

A

Facts: A licensee of a block of flats purported to give a homeless person a license over one of the flats. HL found the homeless person to have a ‘lease’ since he enjoyed exclusive possession for a term at a rent. However the ‘lease’ only amounted to a mere contractual arrangement, not a proprietary interest.

Principle: An apparent distinction exists between a lease which amounts to a mere contractual arrangement and a term of years which is a proprietary interest.

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

What are the two stages for assessing whether an agreement qualifies a lease?

A

1) Consider if at face value it satfiifes EP and certainty of term. If yes -> Lease
2) If no consider whether features preventing it from being a lease are a sham or pretence

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

Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809

A

Facts:

Occupancy was based unpin a ‘license agreement’ which gave M, in return for a weekly ‘license fee’ , exclusive occupancy of self contained flat. Despite the agreement contain a clause stating a tenancy was not intend to arise, M was found to have a tenancy.

Principle: There are 3 (now only 2 following Ashburn which removed ‘rent’) requirements for tenancy:

  1. Exclusive Posession
  2. Certainty of Term
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Define Certainty of term (2)

A
  1. Fixed and maximum duration -
  2. Certain start date (although see s.149 LPA 1925); when nothing is specified it is assumed the lease commences upon the tenant taking possession.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766

A

Facts:

Mr Murphy occupied a small basement room owned by Mr Aslan. The agreement stated that the licensor was not willing to grant the licensee exclusive possession of any part of the room and that the licensor may permit others to use the room. The rent was referred to as a licence fee. The agreement also reserved Mr Aslan the right to retain keys. Mr Aslan was to provide services in the form of cleaning the room, rubbish collection, provision of and laundering of bed linen. However, in practice no others were permitted to enter the room and no services were actually provided.

Held to be a lease

Reasoning: The provisions relating to exclusive possession, permitting others to use the room and the provisions for services were a SHAM for the sole purpose of defeating the Rent Act.

Principles Look to the nature of the accommodation when considering whether a clause excluding EP is real or sham Retention of keys by landlord does not automatically prevent tenancy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Antoniades v Villiers, [1990] 1 AC 417; 52 MLR 408

A

Facts:

A co-habiting coupled signed separate but identical licence agreements contemporaneously giving them the right to occupy a small one bedroom flat. The agreement stipulated exclusive possession had not been granted and the licensor had the ability to invite other to share the flat.

Held to be a lease

Reasoning:

The non-granting of EP and ability to invite others to share was held to be SHAM because:

  • Occupiers were a quasi-matrimonial couple with intentionto create family home
  • Flat was too small to share with others - Clause itslef specified ‘NO MAXIMUM NUMBER therefore if real any number of person could be introduced to share with the couple -
  • Clause to introduce others had never been exercised

Prinicples:

  • Look to the nature of the accommodation and the relationship between the occupiers when considering whether a clauses excluding exclusive possession is real or a sham.
  • Signing separate agreements will not defeat unity of title provided the agreements can be seen as interdependent (one occupant would not have signed their agreement without the other signing theirs)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

AG Securities v Vaughan [1990] 1 AC 417; 52 MLR 408

A

Facts:

Four separate license agreements had been signed on different days relating to the occupancy of a four-bedroom flat. Each agreement stipulated for different payment amounts and each excluded exclusive possession and stipulated sharing with a maximum of three other people.

Held to be licenses

Principle Look to the nature of the accommodation and the relationship between the occupiers when considering whether a clause excluding exclusive possession is real or a share. All FOUR UNITIES must exist for a joint tenancy to arise.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the additional requirements required for a lease to arrive in joint-tenancy ( 4 unities)

A

FOUR UNITIES

  1. POSSESSION - all occupiers entitled to posses whole property
  2. TITLE - all occupiers obtain interest by virtue of the same doc, however what case gives an exception to this?
  3. TIME - occupants must obtain their interest in the prop simultaneously
  4. INTEREST - occupants must occupy the prop with the same rights and obligations for which they are jointly liable. Which case gives an example of this?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Mikeover v Brady [1989] 3 All ER 618

A

Each occupant was found to be liable for just his own monthly payment. Therefore no unity of interest was found to exist and occupancy of the accommodation was based upon a license.

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

Stribling v Wickham [1989] 2 EGLR 35

A

Facts: 3 friends entered into seperate agreement to share P’s flat. Agreement included clause denying EP adn giving landlord permissino to invite other people to share the flat.

Held not to be a lease.

Agreement was NOT a sham. . In “substance and reality” it was a case of contractual licence.The flat’s nature was to have a “shifting population” which makes it impossible to consider it a joint tenancy.

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

LPA 1925 s 149(3)

A

Certainty of start date; if nothing specified it is assumed that lease commences upon the tenant taking possession Start date can be delayed by up to 21 years

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

What is the policy argument dictating the court’s willingness to strike down pretence clauses?

A

Freedom of contract

vs.

Protecting the occupier (inequality of bargaining power).

FOC favoured in commercial instances. Occupier favoured in domestic instances.

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

Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2012] 1 AC 955

PLEASE CHECK THIS FURTHER

A

Facts: UKSC found that an uncertain term should be treated as a lease for life and thus converted into a term for 90 years under s 149(6) LPA 1925 Analysis; UKSC expressed clear disapproval for the requirement of certainty of term suggesting that it should be abandoned altogether

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Javad v Aqil [1991] 1 WLR 1007

A

Facts:

Both parties were in the process of negotiating a 10 year lease over land. During negotiations, the potential lessee was let into possession of the land, for which he paid quarterly. Negotiations broke down and the potential lessor sought to evict.The potential lessee refused to leave on the basis that his possession had created an implied quarterly periodic tenancy, which gave rise to protection under landlord and tenant legislation.

Issue: Had a periodic tenancy been implied

Decision: No

Reasoning:

  • The potential lessee was merely a tenant at will. The parties had not intended for there to be anything more than this whilst formal negotiations were taking place.
  • Although the payment of rent is a good indicator of an implied periodic tenancy, allowing possession during negotiations is a classic case giving rise to a tenancy at will.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1998] Ch 197, 204-219

FURTHER RESEARCH PLS

A

D granted P a quarterly tenancy. D ceased paying rent and after a while no further rent was demanded. After 18 years of paying no rent, P claimed he was entitled to the premises through adverse possession. The court said that the claim couldn’t be struck out.

17
Q

The doctrine of Walsh v Lonsdale

A

If one enters into a contract to grant a legal lease of property, the contract itself creates an equitable lease equivalent to a legal lease. A specifically enforceable contract to create a legal interest creates an equivalent equitable lease. Equity regards as done that which ought to have been done.

18
Q

Coatsworth v Johnson (1885) 55 LJQB 220; (1886) 54 LT 520

A

Facts:

D leased a farm to P, but without the necessary formalities (therefore this was an e—– lease), under the condition that P look after the farm in a good manner. P let the farm badly deteriorate and D evicted him. P sued for wrongful eviction arguing the principle of “W— v L—–”, but the court refused to exercise its equitable jurisdiction because D “came to equity with unclean hands” i.e. he had taken poor care of the farm.

Lord Esher MR: The central question is this: “Would the court of equity in this case have decreed specific performance? If it would, then that is to be considered as done, and then there is a lease. But if it would not, then, there being no lease at common law, it being in the position that the court of equity would not decree specific performance for a lease, then it is no lease at common law.”

Key Principle: An equitable lease will not always exist when a legal lease is agreed to be granted. The contractual agreement must be specifically enforceable.

19
Q

Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9

A

Facts

A 7 year lease was granted by Lonsdale to Walsh over a mill. The lease agreement contained a clause allowing rent to be paid up front for 1 year upon the demand of Lonsdale. The lease was NOT granted by deed, which was and still is a formal requirement of the creation of leases with duration exceeding 3 years (now section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925) Londsale (the landlord/lessor) demanded a year’s rent upfront. This was not paid and so under the the now abolished remedy of distress, Lonsdale seized property belonging to Walsh to enable the recovery of rent advance Issue:

Could Walsh stop Lonsdale from demanding the year’s rent and the seizing of his property as the lease was not formally executed?

Decision: No

Reasoning:

  • The doctrine of Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) was created, allowing equity to regard as done that which ought to be done, or more simply, creating an equitable equivalent of a formally defective but otherwise legal lease
    • Note that the doctrine will only operate where the contract underlying the defective lease complies with s.2 LPMPA 1989, in that it is in writing, contains all express terms, is signed by or on behalf of all parties, provides for consideration and is specifically enforceable.
20
Q

Tottenham Hotspur v Princegrove Publishers [1974] 1 WLR 113, 121-2

A

Lawson J summarises the result of Walsh as:

if a person goes in and occupies property as tenant under an agreement, it is taken as if an instrument giving effect to the new tenancy on the agreed terms has been executed.”

21
Q

Formalities for an AGREEMENT to grant a lease of OVER 3 YEARS duration

A

A valid land contract (s.2 LP(MP)A) compliant so:

  • In writing -
  • Containing all expressly agreed terms -
  • Signed by both parties
22
Q

Formalities for an AGREEMENT to grant a leas of LESS THAN 3 YEARS duration

A

No writing and may arise orally

Falls into exception under S.2(5) LP(MP)A 1989

23
Q

S.2(5) LP(MP)A 1989

A

No formalities required for a lease less than 3 years in duration

24
Q

Formalities TO GRANT a LEGAL lease of OVER 3 YEARS duration (3)

A
  1. Granted by deed - s.52 LPA
  2. Deed must be s.1(2) LP(MP)A compliant so; clear/signed/witnssed/delivered
  3. Registered IF OVER 7 YEARS
25
Q

Formalities TO GRANT a LEGAL lease of LESS THAN 3 YEARS duration

A

No deed needed however:

  1. The lease needs to take effect in possession (therefore does not apply to future leases) - posession includes receipt of rent or profits (s.205(1)(xix) LPA 1925)
  2. and; at best rest (i.e. market rent) s.54(2) LPA 1925
26
Q

Formalities for the ASSIGNMENT of an existing LEGAL lease. (2)

A
  1. Deed - s.52 LPA
  2. Registered s.27(2) LRA 2002
27
Q

Formalities for the ASSIGNMENT of an existing EQUITABLE lease.

A

Must comply with s.53(1)(c) LPA 1925 and - in writing - signed by the assignor

For further detail see Vandervell

28
Q

Sch 3 Para 1 LRA 2002

A

Legal lease less than 7 years are overriding interest

29
Q

A LEGAL lease of MORE THAN 7 Years must be R—— in order to be enforced

A

Registered

30
Q

An EQUITABLE lease is enforced in which 2 circumstances

A
  1. When entered as notices on the charger registered of the land over which it exists ( s.32 LRA 2002)
  2. Where no entry is made it will not bind a purchaser for valuable consdieration UNLESS it satisfies the requirements under SCH.2 PARA.3 and binds as an overriding interest.
31
Q

Define a tenancy at Will

A
  • A personal realtionship between the parties whereby a person is allowed to take possession of aproperty as a tenant but the agreement is such that either party can terminate the tenancy at will​
  • Should the tenant start paying rent whilst in posessio a periodic tenancy will only be implied if there is sufficient intentino between teh parties.