Leases, Licenses and Leasehold Covenants

Question 1

Street v Mountford

Answer 1

Whether it is a lease or a license is SUBSTANTIVE not by form:
“words alone do not suffice. Parties cannot turn a tenancy into a license merely by calling it one”

• cannot use ‘shams’ to disguise a lease

Question 2

Errington v Errington (overruled by Street)

Answer 2

exclusive possession made it prima facie a lease, but it circumstances showed it was intended to be a license then it was

Question 3

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Answer 3

it there is no interest, there is no right

- license are personal

Question 4

King v David Allen Sons

Answer 4

licenses don’t bind strangers

Question 5

Lace v Chantlier

Answer 5

Term must be certain (‘duration of the war’)

Question 6

Snook v London

Answer 6

a sham if common intention not to create the rights obligations

Question 7

Antoniades v Villers

Answer 7

• clause is practically impossible on the facts
• not a genuine reservation by land lord
• sole purpose is to avoid rent acts

Question 8

Aslan v Murphy

Answer 8

bizarre and implausible

Question 9

Bankway

Answer 9

agreement is impossible to comply with

Question 10

Prudential Assurance

Answer 10

‘until the land is needed’ is uncertain

• but there was a periodic tenancy
• can be ended with usual notice

Question 11

Lace v Chantlier

Answer 11

Term must be certain (‘duration of the war’)

• despite it being a periodic tenancy, this other term of ‘duration of war’ meant that it wasn’t
• ordinarily there would be a weekly tenancy, ended by a week notice but ‘duration of war’ in another term, and that was uncertain so it’s not a lease

Question 12

Prudential Assurance

Answer 12

‘until the land is needed’ is uncertain

• but there was a periodic tenancy
• can be ended with usual notice

Question 13

Berrisford v Mexfield Housing

Answer 13

Didn’t overrule Prudential // Lace

• it’s just that there was another term that said landlord cannot end the lease unless certain conditions
• SC said that because it was for a ‘lease’ to a human being for an uncertain term
• old common law said that turns it into a lease for life
• which is then converted into a 90 year lease terminable by death

Question 14

Fitzkristen v Panavi

Answer 14

Best rent which can reasonably be obtained without taking a fine (satisfied if payment is of reasonable market rent)

Question 15

White Garden Theatre v Millennium Productions

Answer 15

licensor is free to revoke the bare license (but this doesn’t immediately turn the licensee into a trespasser)

Question 16

National bank v Ainsworth

Answer 16

3rd parties - only binds strangers not later third parties

Question 17

Dutton

Answer 17

Lisensors with contractual rights to possess have a right against trespassers

Question 18

Liverpool CC v Irwin

Answer 18

You can have a landlord covenant by fact (implied)
- grant a lease on the 9th floor, you’ve impliedly got a landlord covenant to maintain common areas like the stairs and corridors because that is the only way to get to the lease

Question 19

Southwark London v Mills

Answer 19

covenant: quiet enjoyment
- not for sounds
- it is for landlord not interrupting the lease and threatening eviction without notice or reason

Question 20

Chartered Bank v Davies

Answer 20

covenant: no derogation from grant
- lease for a shop in a niche arcade
- landlord rented out one of the shops as a pawn broker
- fundamentally different to what the lease was originally granted for

Question 21

Warren v Keen

Answer 21

covenant: tenant must act in a tenant like manner
- gives a list, e.g. damage wilfully/negligently
- fair wear and tear do not count

Question 22

Allied London Investments v Hambro

Answer 22

before 1996, landlord covenants

Question 23

Allied London Investments v Hambro

Answer 23

before 1996, tenant covenants bound original tenant for the entire term of the lease even after assignment

Question 24

Stuart v Joy

Answer 24

before 1996, landlord covenants bound original landlord for the entire term even after assignment

Question 25

First Penthouse v Channel

Answer 25

after 1996 act:

• EVERYTHING BINDS; unless expressly personal
• but express can be by words (‘this is personal’)
• or implied (in substance it is personal, because of nature of the obligations it imposes)

Question 26

BHP Petroleum v Chesterfield

Answer 26

Can expressly say it is personal even if it isn’t and it still applies (and doesn’t bind future landlords/tenants)

Question 27

Avonridge

Answer 27

1996 act only stops continuing contractual liabilities for tenants

• landlords are still bound
• UNLESS they negotiate a clause in the original lease that says his liability ceases on the reversion (this is acceptable and not contrary to s.25; statute is just an exit route, if the parties themselves stipulate one, that is fine)
• otherwise have to serve notice requesting release from liability