• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/4

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

4 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Street V Mountford (1985)
- This case set out the principles by which a court would decide if a someone's occupation of a property amounted to a lease or a licence.
Facts
- Mrs (Margret from the apprentice) Mountford rented a room under "licence" from Mr (Quality) Street
- The landlord agreed to extend the the agreement to the whole top floor
- The licence contained many conditions and the provision that (Mountford) "understood and accepted that the licence did NOT give a tenancy protected by the rent act".
Findings
- The House of Lords found that where residential accommodation was granted with exclusive possession for a term at rent, that the result was a tenancy
- Lord Templeman memorably stated that "a five pronged implement for manual digging is a fork"
AG Securities V Vaughan (1988)
This case concerned the concept of "exclusive possession"

Facts
- Four individuals each had a written agreement for the occupancy of a furnished flat.
- Each agreement stated that the individual was to share with up to 3 persons with whom the landlord would choose.
- Agreements lasted no more than 6 months and were termed a "Licence"

Findings
- The House of Lords found that the the four occupants together was not a joint tenancy and did not amount to exclusive possession
Antoniades V Villiers (1988)
This case also concerned the concept of "exclusive possession".

Facts
- Involved a couple sharing a flat
- Each had a separate contract, on the same terms, signed at the same time.

Findings
- The court of appeal held that it was a joint tenancy because:
1. the applicants applied together and enjoyed exclusive possession - granted by the landlord.
Lace V Chantler (1944)
This case underlines the fact that I order for a tenancy to exist, it must be agreed that it will last for a known term.

Facts
Lace V Chantler had a lease which was to last for the duration of the war (World War 2 - the sequel).

Findings
The court held that the lease was void due to the uncertain term
This led to the creation of the "Validation of War Time Leases Act" which converted all leases to a term of 10 years with the proviso that either party could terminate the lease at the end of the war giving a months notice.