Leases And Licences Flashcards
S 205(1)xxvii) LPA 1925
Futture leases can exist at law
A lease can be for any certain duration
Rent is not required for the reation of a lease
Tyoes of lease
Fixed- granted for a fixed term for example: ten years
periodic: granted for a shorter erm (e.g weekly, monthly, or quarterly) that is renewed authomatically until notic is given by either party.
Licences
are purely personall agreementts between two parties to occupy land. As such they confer pon the licence holder no propriettryy interest in the land: a licence cannot be sold or otherwiise transferred to a third party; neither can it enjoy any security of tenure. The licence is on land effectively at the whim of the landowner
Street v Mountford (1985)
Three basic components of a lease:
- Exclusive possession
- For a deerminate term
- At a rent
Rent
S20 LPA 1925 technically speaking rent s not a formal requirement of a valid legal lease. Ashburn Anstalt v Arnoldd (1989) confirmed that the listing of rent in street v Mounford as a prerequisite for a valid lease does not preclude a lease under which no rent is payable from being valid.
Lace v Chantier [1944] KB 36
Facts: A lease for the duratioon of the war was held unnable to form the basis of a legal lease because no on could say how long the war (Second War this case) was going to continue.
Priniple: In order o create a valid lease there must be a determinae term.
Berrisford v Mexfield [2011] 1 WLR 1091
The claimant occupied the property in a montly tenancy which the housing association could not bring to an end unless the claimant breached one of the terms of the agreement
The Supreme Court found that whlist the term of the agreement was therefote indetterminable, a tenancy had nevertheless been created on the basis tat it would be inequiable to find otherwise. The ruling has been subject to a great deal of debate as, if followed, the requirements for a term certain would effectibely be nulified,
AG Securiies v Vaughan [1990] 1 AC 417
Facts: Tere were four flat sharers, each being grated at different times and on different terms a sixmonth licence to occupy the flat in conjunction wih three others a the landlord’s discretion, and each paying different amounts for the use of their room within the flat.
Held: There were four genuine and separate icences and did no altoether constitute a jointly shared lease of the property. I
prrinciple: In order to have a valid lease, the tenant must enjoy exlusive possession of the property.
Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288
Facts: The council ran a hotel for single homeless men with personality disorders if larning disabilities. the premises contained 31 rooms, eac with a bed, and limited cooking facilities. Was occupied under a licence agreement whch secified that he occupant could e required to hange rooms at any time without notice in order to facilitate tthe ocupants,
Held: In order to have a vlid lease, the tenants must enjoy exclusie ossession of the propery
Antoniades v Villers [1990] 1 AC 417
Facts: A couple rented one bedroom flat togeter under deperate but identical ‘licence’ agreement. When the couple was shown aound, the flat, they asked the landlord to provide a doubcle bed, which he did. Hoever, when it came to signing the agreements, the documentatio stated thhat the couple did not have exclusive possession of the preises and that the liensor or anyone of his choosingcould use the room aslon with the couple
Held: there was a joint tenancy and not a licence, This was despite the description of the individual licence
Principle: a leae will be created whenever there is exclusive posession. It i te substance of the agreement and not the form that matters
Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 wlr 776
Facts: The case considered three purported licence agreements, eacg of which contained terms that court considered to be a pretence and therefore constituted a tenancy in partiular in one case, the occupier was required to vacate the room entirely between and in another, the landlord retained a key to the preises to provide services to te tenant which were never provided
Principle: when proving exclusive possession it is the subtance of the agreement and not the form that matters.
Brooker v Palmer [1942] 2 All ER 674
Facts: A landower allowed his cottage to be used to house evacuees during te Seccond World War. Held: This was a simple act of. Generosity by the landowner and there had been no intention to create legal relations. The evacuees were therefore occupying the cottage under a licience and not a tenancy.
Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLY 1386
There are three situtation in which no tenancy will be created, even whhere the criteria set out in Street v Mountford1. Where there is no intention to create legal relations
- Service occupanies
- Lodgers
Brooker v Palmer [1942] 2 All ER 674
Facts: A landowner allowed his cottage to be used to house evacuees during theSecond Wold War
Held: This was a simple at of genosity by the landowner and there had clearly no intention to create legal relations. The evacuees were therefore occupying the cottage under a licence and not a tenancy
Principle: no lease will be create in situations where there is no intention to creae legal relations
Norris v Checksfield [1991] 1 WLR 1241
Facts: A coach driver was granted a licence by his employer to live in a bungalow near where he worked ‘for tthe best performance of his duties’. The driver paid £5 a week to live there. Wen the driver was later dismissed, he claimed the benefit of a tenancy over the bungalow. Held this was a licence and therefore determinable without notice when the employee ceased to work for his employer.
Principle: No lease will be created where the occupacy is for better performancr of an emploee’s duties.
Markou v Da Silvasesa [1986] 18 HLR 265
Facts: An agreement provided for services to be provided including a housekeeper, the provision of a telepone, the collection of rubbish and the provision of laudering of bed linen. Held: this eas a licence, and not a tenancy
Principle: A lodger cannot have a tenancyy because they do not have exlusive possession of the premises
If a landlord fails to reate the lease by deed under s.52 and s.54 LPA 1925
At law: If the tenant enters into possession of the premises and pays rent on a regular basis, thereby creating a renewal rental periiod, an implied legal periodi tenancy will be created.
As an equiutable lease under the rule in Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 which states that ‘an agreemen for a lease is as good as a lease’. Under the rule in Walsh v Lonsdale the leae must stil comply with the formalities for a contract for the sale of land unde s.2 LPA 1989
S27 LRA 2002
The grant of new lease of over seven years or the assignment of a lease wit more tan seven years left to run are registerale dispositions which means it is compulsory to register them. If the tenant does not register their lease, their interest will not be proteccted against a third party.
Shed para 1 LRA 2002
Leases of seven years or less ae overriding interests and so are enforceable as against a purchaser of the landord interest, despite not being registered against the landllord’s title.
Section 32 LRA 2002
Equitable leases shold be protected as a minor interest by the entry of a notice in the Charges Register of the landlord’s title.
Need to register
New legal leases over seven years
Assignments of legal leases with oer 7 years left to run
Equitable leases
No need to register
Leases of seven years or less
Equitable leases in actual occupation.
Equitable leases registration
Must be rregistered as a Class c(iv) Land Chargee in order to be afforded protection.
Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill [1935] 1 K 87
Facts: Landlords sought to forfeit the tenany of a woman who had been running a brothel from the premises. Held: The breach of the covenant in te lease not to use premises for illegal or immoral purposes was irremediable. Even if the tenant ceased to use the preises for prostitution, the value of the house had been irrevocably damaged due to the stigma which now attached to it.
Principle: Breaches of negative covenans will usually be consdered irremediable.
Breach of positive covenants
Breaches by the tenant of positive covenants within the lease, such as to repair the premises, are remedible.
Ropemaker Properties Ltd v Noonhaven Ltd [1989] 34 EG 40
Facts: the tenant was in breach of a user covenant not to use a restaurat and night club for illegal or immoral purposes. the teant had been using the premises for the provision of prostitutes. The court nevertheless granted the tenant relief from forfeiture, on the grounds that the lease was of substantial vaue and forfeiture would cause loss to the tenan disproportionate to the breach. In addition, te ioral use had been brought to an end and was unlikely to be renewed, and any stigma attaching to te premises was likely to be shortlived.
Principle: The grant of relief from forfeiture for other breaches of covenant willl depend upon the circumsyances of the case.
Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar(No2) [1972] 1 WLR 1048
Facts: A s146 notice was served on the tenant bu, due to a clerical error, the next quarter’s rent was demanded and sbsequently paid by the tenant. Held: The demand for and acceptance of rent had constitutedd a waiver of the breach.
Principle: The landlord’s right to forfeit will be waied if they continued to recognise the existence of the lease.
the right to forfeit an be forfeit can be waived even where there ha been a simple clerical error on the part og the landlord’s epoyee
