Leases: essential requirements Flashcards
When is a lease created?
Where one person with an estate in land (landlord) grants the temporary right to another eperson (tenant) to use and enjoy that land exclusively
Can also be called a ‘leasehold’ or ‘tenancy’
Can be for weeks, months or years and in residential or commercial context
Can more than one leasehold estate be carved out of the freehold estate?
Yes, will be different parts (e.g. block of flats)
Is a lease a proprietary right?
Yes, known technically as a ‘term of years absolute’
Right to possess!
How is a licence different from a lease?
Licence simply confers a personal permission (personal right) to be on someone else’s land
Cf lease; a proprietary right - can be enforced against third parties
What is the available remedy and enforcement for leases?
- Remedies: a lease can be enforced in rem; by recovery of possession (would not have to settle for damages)
- Enforcement: capable of binding third parties
How do the enforcement rules differ between licences and leases?
- Lease: enforceable in rem, can be enforced against TPs, and a tenant can sue a TP for trespass or nuisance
- Licence: enforceable in personam, can only be enforced against grantor, cannot sue a TP for trespass or nuisance
When deciding if an agreement creates a lease or licence, what will the court look at?
The substance
As opposed to the label i.e. an agreement called a ‘licence’ will not automatically be one
What 3 things are required for a lease to exist and what is the effect of them not being present?
Street v Mountford
- Certainty of term
- Exclusive possession
- The correct formalities
If not present = is only a licence
L e a se
L = length is certain (certainty of term)
E = exclusive possession
A = appropriate method (correct formalities)
Is payment of rent essential for there to be a lease?
No
What is meant by exclusive possession?
The right to exclude all others from the property including the landlord
What does certainty of term mean and in what 2 ways can it be shown?
The tenancy must be granted for certain duration
- Fixed term - duration of arrangement known at outset e.g. 5 years
- Periodic term - technically a lease for one period e.g. weekly, monthly, quarterly etc. until either party gives notice to quit
Must a periodic term be created expressly?
No, can be either…
- Expressly - written agreement documenting the agreement
- Impliedly - nothing in writing, but certain term arises by looking objectively at all relevant circumstances inc payment and acceptance of rent on periodic pasis (may negate non-certain term)
Implied means
E.g. Prudential Assurance - piece of land sold to Greater London Council and leased back to seller to continue until land required by council for widening purposes - was not a lease because of uncertain period at outset, but land was held under a yearly periodic tenancy that arose by virtue of the tenant’s possession and payment of rent by reference to a year - so a periodic tenancy of X amount of time can be implied meaning there is technically certain term
How is the term of an implied periodic tenancy decided?
Determined by reference to which rent is calculated e.g. agreed tenant will pay £12k a year, it will be an annual periodif tenancy (even if paid on quarterly or monthly basis)
What is meant by exclusive possession?
The right to exclude all others from property including landlord
What is the difference between exclusive possession and exclusive occupation?
- Exclusive occupation = a person occupies land themselves without others
- Exclusive possession = multiple occupiers can have exclusive possession together
What 2 things will be looked at to determine whether an occupier has exclusive possession?
- The substance of agreement
- The reality of the situation
What happens if a clause has been inserted into the lease only to make what would otherwise appear to be a lease appear like a licence, what happens?
Making it appear as a licence is its only purpose
The clause will be thrown out as a sham
What 3 situations indicate that an occupier does not have exclusive possession?
- Landlord retains a key and has a right of access
- Landlord provides services
- There is a sharing clause
Also consider control over premises
All can be subject to a sham clause
Will the retention of a key always invalidate exclusive possession?
No - key can be retained/used only for emergencies and repair and occupier still has exclusive possession
I.e. it’s about how much access is restricted
What happens if the landlord provides services?
E.g. cleaning, changing linen etc.
Occupier is only a lodger (provided services actually carried out) who will never enjoy exclusive possession
Will a sharing clause - in which landlord reserves the right to share property with occupiers/to introduce others to share - mean there is no exclusive possession?
Maybe - but must be determined whether it is a genuine clause or a sham to defeat exclusive possession
Genuine = no exclusive possession
What circumstances are considered in determining whether the sharing clause is genuine or a sham?
Applies to other clauses too e.g. control
- Size and nature of accomodation - realistic to introduce others?
- Relationship between occupeirs - would it be appropriate to share given relationship between occupiers?
- Wording of clause - more widely means more likely to be a sham
- If clause has ever been exercised - if not = probably a sham
A G Securities - TDLR: sensible arrangement in a large flat where landlord can make sure someone always in occupation large flat with 4 bedrooms, all occupants did not know each other and signed separate agreements - landowner reserved right to introduce others to share the flat up to a maximum of 4 = court held this was a sensible arrangement to provide accomodation for shifting population of individuals who were genuinely prepreared to share flat = occupiers did not have exclusive possession
Antoniades - TLDR: a couple sharing a one bedroom flat and landord has a right to introduce others to share the occupation small attic flat with bedroom occupied by couple who had signed separate but identical agreements, contained a right for landlord to introduce others to share and to share premises himself and acknowledgements that agreements constituted a licence not a lease - court held it could not realistically have been contemplated that landlord would use it himself or introduce others = sham